Did Mary know her attacker?

[perrymason]

Im pleased to see that you two have decided your mutual beliefs and gracious stance in the middle is where we need to be on this issue, ...but I sadly cannot allign with that thinking. I think for too long people have just accepted stuff about these cases, advanced and beginners, and it hinders real progress. I think that 120 years of no answers at all backs that up. Time for people to take some of this stuff to task, following the conventions is going nowhere.

I dont want to stay safe and say maybe she did go out anyway...it defies the nature of the evidence available. And why keep a door open if it is only open out of habit and ritual...like The Canon. Lets close that door....there was no Canon..some of the c5 seem to match, but some non-c5 match better, .....it was opinions,......grasping for something to tell people...cause they knew absolutely nothing about any real man with any real motive and availability.

Yeah Im stubborn, its not always confrontational but can be, but I would like to be able to make a statement that has support within existing known evidence, and not have it treated like a Mason theory.

Although re-reading, I suppose it must be.

Over and out for 2nite.

[Sam Flynn]

I dont want to stay safe and say maybe she did go out anyway...it defies the nature of the evidence available.

It doesn't in the least, Mike, but hey-ho!

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I am sorry but I cannot continue to argue this point with you. As I have stated numerous times, if I had to place a wager, I would say the odds are that she didn't go out. But I can't be sure.

If you feel you are being ganged up on, well I am sorry. I see you as Lee J. Cobb in "Twelve Angry Men." See you constantly harp on the evidence...where is the evidence...show me the evidence. But you have to question the evidence that is available to us. If you go simply by the evidence, then you are right, there is no evidence that she went out. You are right, period. But is it reasonable to question the evidence and to show flaws in it? For instance, is it reasonable to assume that the witnesses who say that they didn't see her go out were not watching her door in a 24 hour vigil? Or do we simply ignore that question? That is the whole crux of this argument. I can't state that more clearly. If you are unwilling to go beyond the evidence and draw what I and others think are reasonable inferences then we can never reach any common ground on this. I am getting a headache from ramming my head into a brick wall. So I am going to bow out here. All the best to you.

c.d.

[perrymason]

We know Mary Kelly lived with Joe Barnett up until Oct 30th? We know he objected to her "street work". Julia Vanturney was interviewed and stated seeing Mary with Joe Barnett, and mentioning another one she was seeing, but made no mention of Mary ever bringing strangers in. Nor did Mary Ann Cox offer that information, nor did Elizabeth Prater. Since Joe has been gone just over a week, and we can only account for her whereabouts some of that time approximately, she only had potentially 7 nights to start bringing men in. Something that had occurred that recently, a change in behaviour, would have been noticed by Julia, Mary Ann, or Maria...who spent much of that time with Mary...including a few of those nights she was alone.

So....if you are right and she suddenly started, your payout would be much better due to the long odds going in.

Mary Kelly is not on record as having told any of her closest friends and neighbors that she was concerned about back rent being due. Mary Kelly was not stated to have cleared any of the arrears she had up until November 8th by McCarthy, and since he was asked to comment on that issue, would have mentioned any recent payments. It is said that Mary Kelly was given money by at least Joe Barnett daily, excluding the 8th, to address the arrears, as he was also living there when they were acquired.

You may say that not all were asked direct questions as such, but you can surmise by the various minutia mentioned that such things would be memorable.

Now, use Polly and Annie for examples of whores who are pissed and dont have any money or a home as the street women you refer to...the ones that keep going out. Because its clear Mary was not in the dire straits the others were. She had a roof still..was drunk and fed that very night.

I think that addresses the points you jumped at Sam. Im not idly, or without probable merit, suggesting anything about Mary Kelly or that night. She fits the profile I spoke of, one that has no need to work with filthy men in the rain when at home in bed, fed and drunk. Nor is there one reason to suspect she did that night.

Thats why I say hell with the fence.

Best regards.

[Supe]

Michael,

One thing that has always puzzled me about your theorizing about this issue is why you consider the fact that no one saw a light in her room or heard any noise from within is "evidence" she wasn't out? If anything, that would suggest she was out unless you think she would keep a relatively costly candle burning and a clockwork mechanism rocking her bed every few seconds.

And yes, I know that no one saw her go out, but then no one saw Blotchy face leave either. Of course, we live in a real world and "Diddles" belonged to Ms. Prater, not Hr. Schroedinger so it is no surprise that Blotchy face was not there the next afternoon when the door was prised open. But it does mean that the ill-complexioned bloke did slip during one of those long periods when no one was about to see him leave. Just as, Mary might have.

Don.

[Chava]

Gosh, I turn my back and look what happens!

Here's a suspect pearl of wisdom for you Caz: Mary Jane Kelly's clothes were found folded on a chair near her bed but a quantity of other clothes were burnt on the fire. Some of those burnt rags were identified as children's shirts and bits and pieces. ie they did not belong to whoever killed her unless he was a Little Person or a murderous child and they probably did belong to Kelly. It's not a stretch to assume that she actually got undressed and into a nightgown. Yes, she was poor and earned her living on the streets, but no, she wasn't destitute as the other poor women were. I will allow that we have no proof she was wearing a nightgown rather than an under-chemise. But by the same token I think you must allow that we have no proof she didn't possess a nightgown.

Suspect pearl of wisdom #2:

After Sutcliffe was apprehended, he described pretty minutely what happened when he killed prostitutes. He killed them the very first chance he got. He didn't hang around. The only victim he didn't kill the moment he felt he had the opportunity to do so was Wilma McCann, who I believe was not the first woman he attacked, but the first woman he killed. He had a very brief conversation with her. She then crouched down on the grass to urinate in the area where they had gone for business, and he killed her immediately. All the others were killed as soon as Sutcliffe thought it safe to do so. Patricia Atkinson had a flat where she took punters. He went to that flat with her and by his own admission killed her as soon as they walked in the door--no languid postponement there. When Sutcliffe didn't feel like killing, he didn't kill. When Sutcliffe wanted to kill, he did. And as soon as was convenient to him. So I don't think we have any evidentiary reason whatsoever to ascribe 'patience' to the Ripper. He also killed as soon as he felt he was able to do so. We have absolutely no reason to believe he would hang about and 'savour the moment' because his prey was so young and pretty etc etc etc. That's the kind of thinking that sets my teeth on edge because it's part of the unnecessary romanticization of Mary Jane Kelly. If you look at Sutcliffe's women, some were extremely unattractive, some were very pretty, some were ordinary-looking women. And he killed them all without any hesitation or 'patience' or whatever as fast as he could. Let's not have any more lip-smacking over Mary Kelly the Spitalfields Stunna than is absolutely necessary, shall we?

[perrymason]

Hi Don,

Before I answer you Don....
I suppose its obvious by now I truly believe what I am suggesting,... and having nothing at all to do with me, I think there might be more fruitful lines to follow than ones restricting her killer to a man unknown to her, who accesses her in a manner unknown to all but Hutchinson. I truly feel that there are many factors that seem to indicate Mary must have known her killer. Not the least of which are injuries.

Sorry Don. Ok,

"One thing that has always puzzled me about your theorizing about this issue is why you consider the fact that no one saw a light in her room or heard any noise from within is "evidence" she wasn't out?

I dont think the darkness is the indicator, I think its the fact it remains that way from 1:30am until Mary Anns last past by at 3am. Using another street worker in the court, if you want to suggest Mary goes out, then why not a few times like Cox did? Ok....but does Mary Ann light a candle when she comes into warm herself? Probably Does she make noise walking in and out at night? Likely.

No-one hears her either. She had a piece of candle left, and the remains of the fire. Had she gone out and in she would have had to use firelight, which would reflect enough to be noticed by Mary Ann walking past...or the candle piece, again, noticeable in a dark court at 3am.

Plus, if Mary went out when the room first was recorded as dark by Prater, and no-one noticed any light or heard or saw anything until at least 3am, meaning she hadnt returned...then Hutchinsons story still doesnt work.

Blotchy Face is easy.He may be the killer, or not, but we can say 100 % that he did leave the room at some point. Him slipping out once, and quietly, is one thing,...but Mary slipping out quietly before 1:30, after being hammered...then slipping back in with man or men, but never lighting the candle or stirring up the fire or making a sound...which is what is being suggested, is different.

I know this isnt a popular position, because Im tired now....so Ill leave it be for the moment. Im not trying to break new ground, ...or come up with "the" theory, but just think what may have been uncovered if the focus on where to look for Marys Killer was on a small circle of men, instead of anyone 5'6-5'8, who had a deerstalker hat with felt brim, was around 35, and that lived within walking distance.

Best regards Don.

[paul emmett]

Hello, all.

I'd just like to make two observations that relate at least indirectly here.

First, Prater isn't the best witness for lights out at 1:30. She says at at the inqest, "I might not have noticed[a light]. I didn't take particular notice."

Second, I agree with Caz that the assumption that JTR has to jump on his victim immediately is almost becoming part of the legend. So I'm glad it was spoken against. But there's another Urban Legend that most seem to buy into--namely, that JTR just went wherever the prospective victim led him. What proof is there of that? How do we know that he didn't check out the areas ahead of time so he could lead the victim to his turf? Goes where he wants to go.

[Chava]

You make a few good points there Michael.

However here's the thing. Cox puts Kelly in her room at roughly 11.45 pm with Blotchy Face. She's singing. Cox goes out and comes back in at around 1.00 am. Kelly is singing again. It's entirely possible that Kelly has also gone out and come back in, and is singing to herself as she warms up beside her fire, just as Cox is doing. Then she stops singing and goes out. Don't forget that Prater testifies that she comes back to her own room at 1.00 am and then stands on the corner for 20 minutes. She says all was dark and she heard no noise. So here is a possible timeline:

11.45 pm approx Kelly takes Blotchy Face into her room and 'has a song'. Cox still hears her singing as she goes out again.

1.00 am approx Mary Ann Cox returns to her own room and hears Kelly singing again.

1.05 approx Cox goes out again.

1.06 approx Kelly goes out again.

1.07 approx Prater returns to her room and all is quiet. Prater stands on the corner for 20 minutes and doesn't see or hear Kelly.

1.30 am approx Prater goes to bed and sleeps soundly.

Kelly is now out and goes off to get herself a fish supper. She eats it, and then commences to walk the streets looking for a trick.

2.00 am approx Kelly sees and propositions Hutchinson

2.05 am Kelly meets and propositions Mr Astrakhan

2.10 am Kelly and Mr A go back to Kelly's room in Millers Court.

Between then and and 3.00 am Mr A kills Kelly and mutilates her corpse. He then makes himself scarce. The room is now dark and Kelly is dead.

3.00 am approx Cox returns and goes to bed although she really doesn't sleep much. Kelly's room is dark.

Now I'm not a Hutchinson believer. Nor am I a believer in Kelly as a Ripper victim, at least he may have killed her, but not for Ripperish reasons. I do think she knew her attacker. However I cannot ignore the very distinct possibility that, based on the inquest evidence etc, Kelly went out again after Cox heard her singing to Blotchy Face. There's nothing here that contradicts that.

[The Good Michael]

11.45 pm approx Kelly takes Blotchy Face into her room and 'has a song'. Cox still hears her singing as she goes out again.

or, 12:15 Blotchy is a man from the Court who is friendly with Kelly. She shares his beer, and then tells him to get out as she has to get to work.

12:30: Kelly does a customer up against a gate somewhere.

12:50: Kelly returns and starts singing

The possibilities are endless, and I think Blotchy may have been a denizen of the Court, but not necessarily the murderer. Yet, any thought is about as plausible as the next.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

1.05 approx Cox goes out again.

1.06 approx Kelly goes out again.

1.07 approx Prater returns to her room and all is quiet. Prater stands on the corner for 20 minutes and doesn't see or hear Kelly.

This is the bit I have trouble with; the notion that Prater and Cox both missed Kelly, despite the virtually non-existent interval of time that elapsed between Prater arriving and Cox heading out, and despite the fact they both gave 1.00am as the time (which was easily recorded courtesy of Christ Church's hourly chime). It also seems doubtful, to me at least, that Kelly's return with Astrakhan (or equivelent 2:10 client) would have pased unnoticed by her neighbours, particularly in light of her earlier antics with Blotchy which weren't exactly quiet.

I can't rule out the possibilty that Kelly ventured out again after 3.00am, for example (there are very few possibilities that can be ruled out viz z viz Kelly's movements that night), but I have an easier time buying into the notion that she stayed put after 1.00am for reasons discussed ad neaseam.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

Since Im not exactly Making Friends and Influencing People with my explanation of commitment to one premise rather than straddling a fence, Ill try once more using something I know better than JTR details, and I hope you'll understand better.

Tiger Woods is 150 yards from the pin. As far as distance to carry, that would be a routine, 3/4 swing 9 Iron for him. So does Tiger Woods take out a 9 Iron every time he is 150 yards from the pin? Of course not. It depends on many factors, all which have to be considered...including what we know of his skills, and important criteria such as weather. He may hit anywhere from a 4 iron to a sand wedge depending on the adversity.

But make no mistake, Tiger does eventually have to select a single club to make the shot. He cannot stand on the tee muttering to himself forever...."the 6 iron could also accomplish the shot, well...so could the seven I guess, but so could the 8 if I hit it easy...or maybe a soft seven...too short for a five iron?

He weighs the obstacles, weighs his objectives, assess as much ambient data as possible, and commits.

I think the answer of " well, we cant say that for sure, although it does certainly appear that way on paper" is insufficient. At some point you could have all the information that you could possibly have that survived about Mary Kellys death. Its feasible. Read everything.

Once you have as much info as youre gonna get, time to assess it, "I see that it should be yes, but Ill say No because thats what we have believed for 120 years" doesnt work anymore. And some people here have likely crossed that barrier of read almost all there is to read. Not me, far from it. But I never said I should be making these suggestions to pursue....its been about the scholars, the scribes who are among us and give us the details we have about these cases.

I think many would be appreciated more if they explored lines of thought rather than encourage the pat Ripperologist answer to all questions Ripper..."It may appear that way, but we cant say for sure".

These women have been dead a long time, we cant help them or anyone else, we cant even prosecute a killer if we did figure it out....so, for god sakes, make a stand once in a while. Afraid of damaging a reputation? And Im not saying accuse anyone........dear Lord, that has clearly been done far too easily and often, and there is yet to be produced one viable man and motive. In todays world we'd have litigation flying everywhere using living peoples names the way we do dead peoples.

I can say for myself that I respect the envelope pushers more than the envelope lickers.

Despite protests like "these may or may not have been murders"....there are answers. Not twenty...or endless amounts as people claim, there is actually one answer that is complete. If someone said to me lets look at this angle, Id say saddle up. lets check er.

I suppose I cant inflict that spirit on anyone, so Ill leave it alone.

Best regards all.

[Doctor X]

Probably because the conclusions of a responsible researcher prove only as certain as his evidence and analysis of his evidence.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Chava]

Paul Emmett says:

Second, I agree with Caz that the assumption that JTR has to jump on his victim immediately is almost becoming part of the legend. So I'm glad it was spoken against.

But this ain't the Prince of Wales's Debutante Ball. The object of the exercise is to get laid (from the trick's point of view) and to get paid (from the hooker's point of view). The trick wants to get in, get on, get out. The hooker wants to get to her next tot of gin--or possibly to her bed at the doss-house. And the longer she makes polite conversation, the less her prospects of earning more money, and she has to keep that assembly-line moving in order to survive. So I don't think either party to this transaction would normally spend a bunch of time making conversation. They would find a reasonable place, use it and move on. A trick who wants to chat a while might arouse suspicion. A trick who wants to buy the hooker a drink would be welcome, and it's possible that the Ripper did this. However I'm certain that as soon as he could, he got her into the situation he wanted and he killed her. I very much doubt he spent time chatting up Polly Nicholls in Buck's Row or Annie Chapman in Hanbury St. Kelly was killed on her bed. So it's possible she picked up a guy who put her to sleep while he blathered on and then made his move, but I doubt it.

The time discrepancy in the evidence of Cox and Prater is certainly interesting, but I'm putting it down to inattention on one or both parts. Neither of them saw Kelly, but by their own accounts, neither of them saw each other either. If they are basing their timelines on the Spitalfield's Church clock, or the Brewery clock or whatever, it's possible that Cox heard it strike as she was in her room and getting ready to go out again, but Prater heard it strike as she approached Miller's Court. Both of them think 'it's 1.00!!' Prater goes into her room a minute later. Cox leaves a couple of minutes after that. Kelly goes out in between the two, and doesn't necessarily make much noise so neither of them notice.

The thing is that I believe she must have gone out at some point after Blotchy Face, because she definitely ate a fish supper and it's likely, given that some was undigested in her stomach, that she ate it after 11.30 or so, which is when she might have eaten it with BF. Now it's true that someone could have brought her that fish supper. But that would be someone she knew, wouldn't it? In fact I don't have any problem with her going out after Blotchy Face leaves, and I think it's highly likely that she did. If she earned any money with BF or any other trick, then she may well have spent it on food. We know Cox is still tricking until 3.00 am, so Kelly may have expected to work that long as well. We don't know her exact time of death, so it's possible that she was out working and came home a little after Cox did. As has been noted, there are all kinds of variables here, but one hard fact, and that is that she was killed in her nightgown/underchemise lying on the bed and very possibly was attacked while she slept. In which case I believe she was done working for the night and had gone to bed just as Cox and Prater had done.

[jason_c]

"We know Mary Kelly lived with Joe Barnett up until Oct 30th? We know he objected to her "street work". Julia Vanturney was interviewed and stated seeing Mary with Joe Barnett, and mentioning another one she was seeing, but made no mention of Mary ever bringing strangers in. Nor did Mary Ann Cox offer that information, nor did Elizabeth Prater. Since Joe has been gone just over a week, and we can only account for her whereabouts some of that time approximately, she only had potentially 7 nights to start bringing men in. Something that had occurred that recently, a change in behaviour, would have been noticed by Julia, Mary Ann, or Maria...who spent much of that time with Mary...including a few of those nights she was alone.

So....if you are right and she suddenly started, your payout would be much better due to the long odds going in."



Perrymason

Firstly, i hope you dont think im picking into you. But we have Cox seeing Kelly with Blotchy face. As far as we can tell this man was a stranger to Cox. She doesnt mention being surprised that Kelly brought a stranger home, a drunken stranger at that. No surprise from Cox that a drunken Kelly brings a man back to her room so late at night.