Did Mary know her attacker?

[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

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[perrymason]

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.

[Suzi]

Hi Sam/Mike

The meanderings/sightings must always be slightly suspect because let's face it....thats what they are.....just sayings......OK there are bits you remember accurately like clocks chiming (!) and cats (Ho Hum) but in the night to be honest with no accurate time pieces apart from maybe a distant recall of the church bell ringing time could be a tad various apart from the 'Thats the time that Bert always goes to work' sort of recollection.

Right- (Deep breath!) These girls/women lived from hand to mouth most of the time...OK they didn't help themselves in their downward struggle but I suppose that wasn't always their fault.

Now- landed bottom up (!) in the 'pits of the world' there were a few opportunities open to them....do some on and off work (as Liz did) in posher people's houses -or grub by living with a man who was bringing in a regular few bob (like most of the others did -from time to time)

Now- when the 'supporter' dies/disappears/ or goes off in a toot or whatever / these women are left alone with the prospect of somehow raising the price of a room/bed however that is to be raised.

Now...I suppose you could go around to 'old friends'..... or call in a few favours or ....maybe just take a deep breath and go down the old 'Ello darling fancy an 'orrible time' route...I'm totally convinced that this was a last chance plan though...'cos let's face it...up against the wall in the 'circumstances' wasn't your best option.....even in the best of times...albeit a good way to turn a trick for the odd 6d for a room and a gin or two to ease the pain.

Annie and Polly (especially Annie) were quite pathetic when they took to the streets as a 'last chance' -[Bonnet or not............and where did that come from?!] Annie was ill and shouldn't have been thrown out of that kitchen I say!!!

Anyway enough of this rant......this is before I get onto Kate and Mary!!!!

And those guys harnessing horses in Dorset St I say should have been interviewed!!

Cheers

Suzi x

[Suzi]

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

As I've just said Gareth.. To use a Welsh phrase..........'I don't know where I am for the days'...

NOW as to time and accuracy we have to rely on church clocks and cats!....Oh and some 'erbert leaving at his usual time!!!! (hmmm)

Mind you the Welsh do have an uncanny grip in what time of day it is!!!! (Well my Mum did!....like when I came in!!)

This all apart I'm convinced that the multiple occupants of Millers Ct had such a 'random' take on day and night that maybe the odd clock/footsteps and the odd (!) cat wouldn't have made that much difference to their accuracy!!!!!

Mind you the clock chiming at a regular time IF they were actually wide awake at that time may have given 'em a clue

[As an aside though......We don't know that the occupants were even 1% Welsh!!!!!]

.....Oh and Mrs Cox's ref to Mr Blotchy/aka Top hat and tails 'Dont pull me along' etc etc has to be taken with more than a pinch re Farson's 'innacurate recollections'.

Mind you there is a sort of.........natural comment there that maybe shouldn't be ignored.....like the kitten!

Suz x

[perrymason]

Hi Suzi,

I'm not surprised that a woman recognizes that for many of these women, whoring was a plight not a relief, and many did so only when there was no food and no bed on that given night. Or as in Polly's case, booze instead of food and perhaps her bed that night.

Once again, look at Marys situation. We know she drank her fill that night..a courtyard witness saw her loaded going into her room....we know she ate some food...the autopsy revealed that, and we know she did not have to pay 4d to sleep there that night. We know there was a man with her....same witness.

What we do not have evidence of is her leaving again, him leaving, or anyone coming into the courtyard with Mary later that evening. Evidence that was not discarded in days I mean.

All that we can conclude of those three with any certainty is that Blotchy left. Because he was not there when they opened the door.

So...lacking any evidence to the contrary on the records, I made some remarks.

One last thing...if Mary had to access the spring latch via the window when she got home, we then have another man on record who knows that trick...and could reverse the process when leaving.

Gotta jet...my best regards Suz.

[c.d.]

I have been away for over a week recovering from knee surgery. Hopefully next week I can graduate from crutches to a cane. In my absence, I see that this debate rages on. Against my better judgment, I shall weigh in.

Michael is absolutely adamant that there is no evidence that shows that Mary went out that night soliciting. Therefore, he concludes that she did not go out that night and nothing will dissuade him from that belief. Fair enough.

Now Sam on the other hand says well that may be but we need to examine the evidence and test its validity. He points out that it is not an unreasonable assumption to assume that a regular prostitute in need of money would go out on a weekend night and that the witnesses who have given us this evidence were really not in a position to monitor Mary's coming and goings with absolutely certainty. Fair enough.

Well that folks is the debate in a nutshell. Either we accept what evidence we have as a metaphysical certainty or we choose to examine the evidence. It all depends on how you want to approach it.

Now I do think it interesting that we also have evidence that George Hutchinson saw Mary out soliciting that night. We have evidence that none other than the highly respected Inspector Abberline believed his story. But when faced with evidence that tends to undermine his position, my good friend Michael says it is reasonable to assume that Hutchinson was discredited. Ah, but there is no evidence of that. That is attempting to interpret the validity of the evidence.

I guess it all comes down to how you want to look at things.

Moral of the story -- try to stay away from crutches. They are a pain in the butt.

c.d.

[Suzi]

Hi Mike- I disagree re the lock/window The girl lived there and knew the ways in and out and am sure wasn't averse to popping into 'Uncle Mc C' to grab a key if push came to shove! [Controversy!]

Hi c/d as a fellow knee sufferer- I sympathise! Actually as to crutches.......... they're a pain in the hands as I recall Grrrrrrrrrrrr forget 'em! Just LIMP! thats what I did!x

Mary was OUT and GH saw her ............end of story I say!.........Oh and if pushed..........so did Mrs M

[Ben]

my good friend Michael says it is reasonable to assume that Hutchinson was discredited. Ah, but there is no evidence of that

Please don't be ridiculous, CD.

Hutchinson's suspect description was most assuredly discredited. Subscribe all you wish to the view that he might have seen Kelly in some capacity that night, but the police clearly did not invest any sock in his eyewitness description of a suspect in the long run. We either accept this or endorse the view that the seniority of the contemporary police force suffered from collective stupidity or amnesia in subsequent reports, interviews and memoirs. Abberline's immediate reaction to Hutchinson's statement reflected a belief in its veracity, but this was penned on the same evening that Hutchinson made his statement, when it was literally impossible to validate his claims. Hardly surprising, then, that he revised his view by the time of his 1903 interview, and hardly coincidental that those views tied in with his superiors on the subject of Hutchinson's evidence.

Just a general observation; Yes, Kelly's neighbours were out soliciting in the small hours, but the ones we know about weren't bringing clients home. Prostitutes living in doss houses were not in the same immediate predicament as Kelly for reasons already outlined.

[Suzi]

Ben-'Did not invest any sock???' Hmmmmm

I am totally sure that George Hutchinson 'knew' Mary in whatever sense and OK his statement 'large' or not... He most certainly saw her that night at some point...the 6d line is too close to be true it smacks of a friendship and I will not be swayed from that!

[paul emmett]

Abberline's immediate reaction to Hutchinson's statement reflected a belief in its veracity, but this was penned on the same evening that Hutchinson made his statement, when it was literally impossible to validate his claims.

Hi, Ben, all.

What claims COULD he validate? And, in turn, what claims could he invalidate?