Did Mary know her attacker?

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

Sleep and booze would have delayed the digestion process quite a bit. Therefore, it wouldn't be surprising if she had her last meal around 12:00am, for example.

Otherwise, good points all round.

Ben

[Chava]

To take on a couple of points:

The evidence that Mary left her room after 1.00 am. We know she was in her room then because she was singing. We also know that she entered that room with Blotchy Face at 11.45 as per Cox's statement which is believed. We also know that a partially undigested fish supper was found in her stomach and intestines. If she ate before 11.45, say around 11.30, that meal would have been more than partially digested by 1.15 which is when she was heard singing by Cox as Cox went out again. If we assume that after she stopped singing, she undressed and got into bed, that takes us to roughly 1.30 am. The doctors at the time put her death at around 3.00 am. Even if they are out by an hour, that meal is long gone from her stomach. Therefore I feel it's likely that she went out again after Blotchy Face left, and got or was gotten a fish supper. Now it's also possible that her murderer brought her said fish supper and she ate in her room. But if that's the case, there's no evidence to suggest it. And fish suppers don't half stink up a small space!

The totally discredited evidence of the man George Hutchinson: we know the description he gave the cops was not circulated after November 15th. So that part of his statement for whatever reason is out. However even though I am one of the leaders of the 'GH Is An Attention-Seeking Troll' school of thought, I can't dismiss his evidence of having seen Kelly outright. I'm not saying he did. But I am saying that the cops may have disbelieved his 'eye-witness description' of the killer but there is no evidence to suggest he made up the entire story. It's not beyond the bounds of belief that he saw Kelly that night.

Now, Sox, you didn't think you'd make a blanket statement like that about Victorian tarts and not have me after you, did you? Kelly may well have undressed to her chemise with a valued customer. Maybe she felt she could charge extra for giving him the West End Bordello treatment (for that was the whole reason behind that West End/Gone To France crap she was dishing out, I'm convinced!) However I would bet real money she wouldn't take off her stays unless her trick paid to spend the night. Those stays were hell to take on and off and women left them on until they got ready for sleep. And if her killer is the Ripper I don't see any reason why he would spend valuable ripping time hanging around while she took off all her clothes--except one stocking--got into her nightwear and made herself comfortable. Even if he did, and pretended to be a trick wanting to spend the night, I think it's more likely that Kelly would entertain him nude than put on her nightie, don't you?

And Perry is right. The women the Ripper killed went for knee-tremblers down back alleys where all they did was hoist their skirts and lean back against some grubby brick wall. No wonder they were called 'unfortunates'. Those poor women.

[quote=Ben;3588

We don't know that he did in the long run, Brad.

Best regards,
Ben[/quote]

Your gift for tact always makes me smile Ben. In fact, as early as November 15th..3 days after the taking of the statement George Hutchinson provided, Blotchy Man is the official suspect description. How or why aside, as either cannot be answered by any of us using existing documents, thats the historical perspective.

I would think that the Police who took Hutchinson's statement first hand expected some legitimate new truth, being from a man claiming to be Marys friend..they weren't gullible at all, its that Hutchinson sold his story......with his emphasis on details and the ability to recognize the man again on sight, he had not simply told his story.

Best regards Ben.

[Ben]

Okay, on page 378 of The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Companion Inspector Abberline states in his report that "I am under the opinion his, Hutchinson, statement is true" Why is there such a big debate about Hutchinson being believed. Abberline who interviewed him believd him.

We don't know that he did in the long run, Brad.

Unless the contemporary police suffered from collective police negligence and/or amnesia when penning their memoirs or giving interviews after 1888, we're left with an almost inescapable conclusion that at the very least the police came to discard Hutchinson's Astrakhan sighting as valueless as evidence for tracing a potential murderer.

Best regards,
Ben

[celee]

Hi Gareth,

It certainly is if she never went out again after midnight though....something however distasteful to you, we cannot rule out using surviving documents and time-trusted statements on record.

Mary Ann Cox was trusted...her Blotchy Man becomes the primary suspect by Nov 16th...Sarah was trusted, her Wideawake Man may have helped spark a Pardon issuance within 24 hours, Elizabeth Prater is trusted apparently, since the key point of her testimony is not the "cat waking" but the status of Marys room when she ascends the stairs for bed, ...George Hutchinson was not trusted to have given an accurate suspect description, and due to its flowery embellishments, its impossible to believe it was accidental, and Caroline Maxwell was considered incorrect before taking the stand, she countered all accepted evidence about the corpse.

My best regards Sam.

Okay, on page 378 of The Ultimate Jack The Ripper Companion Inspector Abberline states in his report that "I am under the opinion his, Hutchinson, statement is true" Why is there such a big debate about Hutchinson being believed. Abberline who interviewed him believd him.

Why is the most probable answer that her killer must have known her or her room. That is just an opinion. I am under the opinion that Kelly went back out after three met her attacker and brought him back to her place.

I can not prove anyone wrong. There is no stone cold evidence either way. Nobody can claim, in this case, that their theory is the most logical or probable

[NOV9]

We agree on something.



So, we go from 'very probably' to 'known facts' and you cannot see why I have a problem with this??? These 'known facts' are known facts to exactly one person - you. There is no evidence, anywhere, that Mary Kelly knew her killer, none.

I cannot rule out personal attatchements in all the prior victims, and neither can anyone else! For all we know, the killer could very well have previously had sex with every single one of the victims. Now she's a washerwoman according to you!

Kelly could have known her killer yes, but there is nothing to suggest this is so. She was killed in her own room, half undressed, because she was a prostitute, and Victorian prostitutes undressed to their chemise before sex. Kelly was almost certainly a different kind of prostitute than the others, do some research for yourself and see. I have no idea why you try to make this woman out to be something she was not, or why you try to turn her death into something it was not.

She died in her room because that is where she worked.Some evidence with previous victims suggests that the victims themselves chose the location.

She died, half undressed, because that is how her particular class worked.

The only real mystery here, is who killed her.

I have read every single part of the official files over and over again Michael, and at no point do police seriously consider that Kellys killer was a personal aquaintance or lover. There is not one single scrap of hard evidence that any of the victims knew their killer. What we do have is over a hundred years of supposition and opinion, that is NOT evidence.

Sox,

"The only real mystery here, is who killed her."

I know that my statements on this killing were a bit cryptic, but you have said what I have been holding back on, because I'm looking for someone to read between the lines, and not just going head to head on what you have stated here, this is great.

Killers today are not so different as the killers from the past.

Humans are a creature of habit.

I am on assignment and will not be able to respond as often, but will keep an eye on this.

Hello all,

Don, are you saying that Maria, by spending the entire afternoon with Mary in her room, and bringing with her take-in laundry... that is found folded in the room, belonging to neither Maria or Mary, along with Mary receiving some coins from Maria, is not evidence that suggests Mary helped Maria with her laundry?

Paul, Mary was a prostitute, I brought up the laundry to show an example of how Liz Stride, and perhaps Mary Kelly, earned money for cleaning their last day....as we cannot be sure either was "working" the streets that same night. Anyone who says they did nothing but whore is being naive, and harsh.

Tron, thats why I said approximate. As far as evidence that suggests Mary Kelly was killed by someone she knew, perhaps you have another explanation for the killer coming into the court and her room by herself....and Ive already acknowledged it could have been accidental luck too.

Chava, if you look at pictures of courts like Millers Court from that era, you will see wash lines strung across the open area. The clothes were folded, meaning already washed, so the line may have been taken in when they were air dried. As far as Mary hooking that night, perhaps you like some others here have some secret evidence that Mary left her room after midnight, because as a matter of record, that has not been proven by anyone. In fact on record, it appears that she did not. If you choose to validate Hutchinsons sighting, or Maxwell or anyone else that is contrary to all other accepted evidence that night, thats your choice.

Sox, the only thing I can see with you is that you like being a pain in the a** with me. I said the accepted evidence of the night regarding Mary and her room, suggests that Mary did not go out that night, as we have no credible witness to suggest otherwise....which is 100% accurate.

Your points..."She was killed in her own room, half undressed, because she was a prostitute, and Victorian prostitutes undressed to their chemise before sex."

Really? Even prostitutes who dont use a room and solicit their clients on the street, as Barnett said Mary did? But you know differently... right. There is not one shred of evidence that Mary ever brought a client to her room...NOT ONE. Unless you and others believe her clients paid for singing.

"Kelly was almost certainly a different kind of prostitute than the others, do some research for yourself and see"

There are many here who have studied the crimes far more closely than I have, you're not one of them. Or as the church across from my apartment says on its message board...The two truths, There is a god, and you're not him.

"She died in her room because that is where she worked."

Since we know that the opposite is likely true, that she never entertained clients in her room, well done on that point. Not one drop of proof to support your claim.

"I have read every single part of the official files over and over again Michael, and at no point do police seriously consider that Kellys killer was a personal aquaintance or lover. There is not one single scrap of hard evidence that any of the victims knew their killer. What we do have is over a hundred years of supposition and opinion, that is NOT evidence."

You would think then that you would know Mary Kelly is one of around 11 alleged street prostitutes killed between 1888 and 1889, not a forensically determined Ripper victim, and she is the only one killed in her own bed.

To correct you on another point, there is indeed evidence that suggests Mary Kelly did not leave her room, and so Mary knowing her attacker is one of two answers as to how he found the room, gained access, and if Mary was then awake, why he was allowed to stay. For the last time....and I suggest you open you ears and eyes so you read it properly....there is no credible evidence on record that denies Mary stayed in. And if so, her killer either came to her room, or found her room available to him by chance. Either is possible.

I am losing my patience having to counter insults instead of actual counter-points, so for the sake future argumentative spew, perhaps it would be better if you all who crap on my posts can answer the following;

1. What proof is there that Mary Kelly left her room after 11:45pm? Again...please dont use discredited statements in your answer.

2. What proof is there that Mary Kelly ever brought a client to her room?

3. What other street prostitute is killed in her own room? Using all of 1888 and 1889 stats.

4. What evidence is there that Mary did not let her killer enter from the inside of her room?

5. What evidence is there that the killer did not know the window/latch method?

6. What evidence is there to state for certain only 1 man was involved in her death? Remember Jacks a lone wolf apparently.

7. What evidence exists that demonstrates only Jack the Ripper could cut women open? We have other killings that mirror Ripper style, but weren't attributed to him.

8. What evidence is there that Mary was soliciting at the time of her death, or when she meets her killer?

9. What evidence is there to suggest that Mary would go to work in the streets when it is raining, and she is already fed, drunk, and at home? Use her work ethic as gathered from friends testimony, and her "responsible" behavior on her rent arrears as a guideline.

10. What evidence is there that confirms Mary could not, and did not know her killer prior to her death? Is it the struggle that didnt she put up until attacked with the knife, is it the screams for help that she doesnt make when she finds someone at her door or in her room, or is it the way he forces himself in on her quietly?

In this instance, I could care less who agrees with me, as I quite obviously have the data foundation present to make the statements that seem controversial. I have no problem discussing valid points with anyone, but Ill be damned if Ill let insults take the place of sound rebuttal.

If I hear another "Mary went our whoring cause whores go out whoring and she was a whore"....or, "theres no evidence to suggest she may have known her killer"...despite the obvious fact someone very likely came to her room by themselves to kill her, that she dies in her own bed, undressed, and so she was very likely not acquired in "The Ripper" style...while they are actively soliciting, or at the very least, dressed and outdoors after midnight.

Ill leave the thread to you folks, as you obviously have a much greater grasp of the pertinent facts, and what logical reasoning is, than I do.

Its probably very freeing to be able to say Mary went whoring after midnight, without providing any accepted evidence to support that conjecture...that Mary brought clients to her room, despite that evidence on file that suggests she never had done that prior to Nov 1st, and Mary didnt know her attacker, without any proof that was the case.

Believe what you want, Im tired of pointing out the obvious and then having to explain it.

Regards.

[Sox]

Michael,

I think we have evidence that like Liz, Mary earned some money not prostituting her last day on earth.

No we don't. Your notions of "evidence" are strange to say the least.

Don.

We agree on something.

Point being Sox, you can effectively rule out the probability of personal attachments in all the prior victims with their killers. There is nothing in known evidence to suggest it. In the case of Mary Kelly, it is right there smacking you in the face. Mary died undressed, in her own room, and her killer very probably came directly to her room by himself. Thats the known facts. If you dont agree that scenario allows for a "known" killer of Mary, then you are most definitely incorrect.

So, we go from 'very probably' to 'known facts' and you cannot see why I have a problem with this??? These 'known facts' are known facts to exactly one person - you. There is no evidence, anywhere, that Mary Kelly knew her killer, none.

I cannot rule out personal attatchements in all the prior victims, and neither can anyone else! For all we know, the killer could very well have previously had sex with every single one of the victims. Now she's a washerwoman according to you!

Kelly could have known her killer yes, but there is nothing to suggest this is so. She was killed in her own room, half undressed, because she was a prostitute, and Victorian prostitutes undressed to their chemise before sex. Kelly was almost certainly a different kind of prostitute than the others, do some research for yourself and see. I have no idea why you try to make this woman out to be something she was not, or why you try to turn her death into something it was not.

She died in her room because that is where she worked.Some evidence with previous victims suggests that the victims themselves chose the location.

She died, half undressed, because that is how her particular class worked.

The only real mystery here, is who killed her.

I have read every single part of the official files over and over again Michael, and at no point do police seriously consider that Kellys killer was a personal aquaintance or lover. There is not one single scrap of hard evidence that any of the victims knew their killer. What we do have is over a hundred years of supposition and opinion, that is NOT evidence.

[Chava]

Perry, I've don't regard the fact that there was a pump outside Kelly's room and a washbasin under her bed as proof that she took in washing. For a start, where was she going to hang it to dry? I don't see any record of a washing line in her room and there was certainly no room for one in Millers Court. Chances are that the washbasin was one she washed herself in, and she'd be pleased the pump was right outside the door so she didn't have to schlep the water for her ablutions too far.

In any case, as I've said before, she was hooking on the night she died along with (probably) all the other victims.

[Tron]

Hi Tron,

But we can deduce something about her dinner, although Ill leave that to my good friend and Digestive Consultant Sam Flynn to address...once again eh Sam...we know when in proximity to her death her meal was eaten, and approx what time that may have been.

That would be very interesting since I failed trying to accurately calculate her time of death relative to having her last meal. At best we (ok, maybe just me) can approximate but not accurately. Then of course there are no witnesses and there is Mrs Maxwell who believes to have seen her in the morning which is entirely possible according to my (poor) calculations.

And please dont miss my point here, Im not saying there is proof that she knew her attacker, I am saying it cannot be ruled out...as it effectively can be in all 4 prior Canonicals, using only known data. Or.... there is no evidence to suggest it in the 4 priors.

Of course you cannot rule it out that she knew the perpetrator (statistically it is very likely) but there is no evidence either way. It is unclear when it comes to the prior victims whether they did know the killer or not (I would even wager they were not all victims of the same killer). In this case it seems there is bias since she was murdered in her room and the prevalent assumption is that only somebody who has known her would know where to find her. Yet, it is possible somebody followed her from drinking/dinner and waited in the vicinity until it was safe to make his or her move. There is no data for that time frame so anything short of an alien abduction gone wrong is within the realms of possibility.

[paul emmett]

Chava,

The last afternoon Mary was alive she spent in her room with Maria Harvey. Maria took laundry in to make money, as well as prostituting. Maria gave Mary some money that same day. There were folded clothes, the laundry taken in by Maria, found in that room.

Underneath Marys bed is a wash tub. Outside her room there is a Pump.

I think we have evidence that like Liz, Mary earned some money not prostituting her last day on earth.

My best regards.

Hello, Michael. First of all, I'd ask what is at stake here. MJK wasn't a full time prostitute? Seems like a lot of her life is caught up in it. I've never heard the Maria gave Mary some money line--nor the fact that the folded clothes were taken in by Maria. Weren't they Kelly's?

Back a post or two, the asserted proof for CE meeting somebody in Mitre Square was that they checked couples, and did not find Eddowes with anyone. Also, you can't say, "IF the cry of 'oh Murder' was coming from MJK's room, then . . .." cuz not only do you lead into a kind of either/or fallacy, you dodge the possibility that it never came from there at all.

Good evening.

[Supe]

Michael,

I think we have evidence that like Liz, Mary earned some money not prostituting her last day on earth.

No we don't. Your notions of "evidence" are strange to say the least.

Don.

Chava,

The last afternoon Mary was alive she spent in her room with Maria Harvey. Maria took laundry in to make money, as well as prostituting. Maria gave Mary some money that same day. There were folded clothes, the laundry taken in by Maria, found in that room.

Underneath Marys bed is a wash tub. Outside her room there is a Pump.

I think we have evidence that like Liz, Mary earned some money not prostituting her last day on earth.

My best regards.

Hi Tron,

But we can deduce something about her dinner, although Ill leave that to my good friend and Digestive Consultant Sam Flynn to address...once again eh Sam...we know when in proximity to her death her meal was eaten, and approx what time that may have been.

And please dont miss my point here, Im not saying there is proof that she knew her attacker, I am saying it cannot be ruled out...as it effectively can be in all 4 prior Canonicals, using only known data. Or.... there is no evidence to suggest it in the 4 priors.

My best regards.

[Chava]

Sox: Polly Nicholls had been shown to be working as a prostitute in 1882 when her husband discontinued his payments to her. For the next few years she lives from workhouse to workhouse and spends some time with her father who testifies that she was a hopeless alcoholic. In May of 1888 she goes from Lambeth Workhouse to work at a local family's as a domestic. She lasts 2 months and leaves. Taking with some clothes she has nicked from the family. She then lives in doss-houses and there is no suggestion that she did any kind of 'honest' labour. She supported herself, or rather she supported her drink habit by prostitution. On the night she died she boasted of having had her doss-money 3 times and having spent it. She was heading out to earn some more for her bed that night and it's clear her intention was to earn it by hooking.

Annie Chapman did try and earn money by selling flowers and trinkets such as keychains. However she was an habitual drunkard and she was known to have prostituted herself on occasion. She had a series of relationships with men but they did not seem to be able to keep her. On the night she died she left the doss-house to earn some money to pay for her bed. It's clear she intended to do this by prostituting herself.

Liz Stride did a variety of things to keep body and soul together. She was a drunk and also a part-time prostitute. She had earned some money cleaning on the day she died. But that night she went out again, and it's very likely she was hooking.

Catherine Eddowes was a drunk whose adult daughter moved around South London to avoid her and her mooching ways. She did a number of odd-jobs and had gone out hop-picking. Her family strenuously denies the charge that she was on the game, and she may not have been a hooker in the way the others were. It's entirely possible that the Ripper picked her up as she left the cop shop in Bishopsgate and offered to buy her a drink. There is no proof either way with Eddowes so I'll leave it at that.

However 3 out of 4 ain't bad. And even if Nicholls, Chapman and Stride worked their fingers to the bone cleaning and stitching and carrying, on the nights they died, they were hooking. So their previous employment isn't in my opinion relevant. And please note I'm not judging them for what they were and I absolutely don't think they deserved anything of what they got.

Kelly, however, as you've noted, was a common prostitute, and there is no record of her ever doing anything else.