Did Mary know her attacker?

[caz]

Hi Chava,

I think we are actually in agreement about most of the basic arguments here.

I only have a problem with the reasoning you use to conclude that the ripper would only have had murder in mind if he encountered Mary on November 9th, and would have felt compelled to strike as soon as possible when alone with her - either on the basis of Sutcliffe claiming to have been compelled to strike his victims immediately, or on the basis of the ripper's outdoor murders where circumstances dictated (and not necessarily any lack of self control) that he had to strike while the iron was hot or not at all. You may be right, of course, but your conclusion does not really follow from the evidence you are using here - that's all.

I did also feel entitled to point out that I was no more romanticising Mary than you were, for merely suggesting that her age and private room might have appealed more to any regular user of prostitutes than a street knee-trembler with a physical wreck, and could hold true whether the punter was paying with food or drink or hard cash, for whatever made him feel good, and for however long his funds lasted, or was even the ripper on a no-kill night, paying the going rate for indoor sexual relief in Spitalfields.

I hope that's sorted out now, because I do enjoy your posts but I have a thing about trying to iron out any apparent contradictions.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Caz,

I do owe you a response since you took such time to address the points. But since by your reply you didnt even take a Hutchinson remark as the tongue in cheek manner in which it was intended, I dont think saying it all again would make any difference. Youre just reading letters and words, not in any context or recognition of the essence within the statements.

I think people here dont take stands on issues like this because they fear loss of reputation in the community. I have no such reputation to risk, few if any take my suggestions seriously or thoughtfully, so I am a bit freer than some to "risk".

So...if youd like me to defend my position once again, it should be based on evidence I havent read about, or that has not been made public...or existed once, but is now lost. Because I see no reason to alter my statements based on existing known data.

Sorry Caz...seemed like you were ready for tooth and nail there. My golf analogy should have addressed all future questions to me......sooner or later you have to select a single club. It may prove to be the wrong choice. But your not playing golf unless you are hitting shots. So take in the data....assimilate, discuss, then take a position.

At least Im taking one. She didnt go out...her killer came in after 3am, and based on the lack of support for an immediate struggle with him at the door, or statements that she vehemently cried out for help, he most likely entered with her blessing.

Despite the protestations, and claims the idea is unsubstantiated...its is in fact possible using the existing data....not assuming its incomplete. And frankly I dont need to convince anyone here Im right....if I am, your wrong,.. if youre right, then all your rebuttal amounts to naught.

Somebody has to get crapped on for progress on these issues, they are stalled using old, unfounded principles about what happened...not the least of which is assigning 5 specific victims only to a guy whose name "Jack" they use, because he signed off a hoax letter that way.

Cheers.

[Chava]

Caz, you're right! I over-reacted after a basinful of reading 'lovely Mary' stuff over the last while. In fact the circumstances of the murder suggest to me that whoever killed her either broke in on her while she was sleeping, or had spent quite some time with her before he killed her. That's why I am an adherent of the 'Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim' school of thought. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the Ripper could have stayed with her for a while before killing her. But that does argue, to me, more than a casual punter. Because if a casual hung around after the business end of the evening was over, I think that would have puzzled Kelly. And a puzzled hooker is not so easy to take by surprise as a non-puzzled hooker!

[Tom_Wescott]

I think people here dont take stands on issues like this because they fear loss of reputation in the community. I have no such reputation to risk

Is this what alcoholics call 'a moment of clarity'? Brazos to you, Michael, brazos.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Is this what alcoholics call 'a moment of clarity'? Brazos to you, Michael, brazos.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

Knowing that many of you dont take my points seriously doesnt make any of them incorrect. So Im ok with the above stuff. Thinking the answer are " Maybe, but "we can only guess about that"...or " yeah, thats the records , but they must be missing something" are pretty sad positions for those who claim some positions of knowledge or stature in these studies.

Since the experts think Jack did it, he did. No proof offered of that, nor does it take into account the many circumstantial points that do not point to THE RIPPER....nor is there one shred of proof against any of the "suspects" studied. But thats the position, so anyone who says different is unbalanced.

Yeah...ok. Perfect logic for the study of a gutter dwelling serial killer of 5 women.

And if the reputation you seek is one of superiority to others, I guess you better be right huh?

Ta.

[caz]

Hi Perry,

Well thanks for once again failing to address my specific concerns about previous specific arguments you made. I'll remember that next time and just issue a blanket concern for your entire position being as wobbly as a very wobbly thing, that's so wobbly you are scared it will fall over if you stare too hard at the bricks you used to build it, let alone try to add any further clarification or justification for using them in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

PS 'her killer came in after 3am'? After the time Hutch said he left, you mean? Was that tongue-in-cheek too, or is Hutch back in favour with you as an honest witness? Apologies for not getting all the nuances of language when you post.

[perrymason]

I made a statement, and some of the longest term students signed in here to call me crazy and illogical.

Yet not one has proven that what I suggest cannot be true.

Log that fact folks.

cheers....I have work pending as Im sure we all do....

[caz]

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the Ripper could have stayed with her for a while before killing her. But that does argue, to me, more than a casual punter. Because if a casual hung around after the business end of the evening was over, I think that would have puzzled Kelly. And a puzzled hooker is not so easy to take by surprise as a non-puzzled hooker!

Fair point, Chava, except that the ripper would not fit anyone's definition of a 'casual' punter, even if that's what Mary assumed him to be. But I tend to think she would have preferred to service the non-casual punter, if the opportunity knocked for her, and let him stay with her and do pretty much whatever he fancied for as long as he fancied it, if he appeared good for all her worldly needs in the immediate future. If she let Joe into her life and her bed, within a day of them being perfect strangers, would she have been puzzled - or pleased - if the ripper had settled himself down for the night and nuzzled up to her?

Maybe a non-casual ripper said casually: "Tonight, Mary Jane Kelly, opportunity knocks. And I mean that most sincerely". And Mary wanted it to be true so much that she let opportunity give her the rudest awakening of her life.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Hi Perry,

Well thanks for once again failing to address my specific concerns about previous specific arguments you made. I'll remember that next time and just issue a blanket concern for your entire position being as wobbly as a very wobbly thing, that's so wobbly you are scared it will fall over if you stare too hard at the bricks you used to build it, let alone try to add any further clarification or justification for using them in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

PS 'her killer came in after 3am'? After the time Hutch said he left, you mean? Was that tongue-in-cheek too, or is Hutch back in favour with you as an honest witness? Apologies for not getting all the nuances of language when you post.

Caz,....youre a nice person and you know a lot about Ripper cases. But I am not going to counter any and all of your and others objections using anything other than on-record data that was trusted, to formulate my opinion. I dont get paid well enough here to do that over and over again just because someone wants a run at me, so excuse the lack of point by point rebuttals. Im sure you arent paid well enough for that either.

So..my rebuttal is.... Read the details by all trusted witnesses, read the room details and her demeanor details, read about the room incidentals like missing key, weather reports for the night, police list of effects found....read opinions of Marys behaviors by close friends of hers...read all about the men in her life at that time and the love triangle that she was engaged in...at least triangle...read about wounds that were unlike Ripper injuries, but very much like those inflicted by people with romantic or relationship entanglements........and all the other side stuff, medical opinions, press coverage, Inquest data, rent arrears, money exchanges.............and without using a witness story that has already been discarded 120 years before you and I ever had this discussion....... tell me where is there any evidence of a trip, a client, or a loud attack on a stranger?

We have witness records from the court off and on until 3am.....thats the 3am part, nothing to do with Hutch, who if accurate, has Mary being killed while Mary Ann Cox comes in last. Yet Mary Ann noticed no light or heard no noise walking past the door......she noticed no light...that would be cast upon the 2 story white wall opposite Marys windows.

We have witness accounts of who was seen with her last and when. We know from witnesses she was drunk, and from medical examination, that she ate that night. We know she has been given money for arrears and not paid it down.....read McCarthys comments, so imminent eviction is not a real possibility here, she was not in fear...she is fed, happily drunk, has eaten and is home, while it rained hard outside. She is seen going in, and found inside 11 hours later dead, undressed in what may be nightclothes, and on her own bed. There is no record of any trip outside from any credible source all night, nor is there any record that at anytime between 1:30 and 3am, during which time Elizabeth saw from the stairs, Cox is in and out and in again, and Sarah arrives in the court, right past Marys door..no-one mentioned light or noise at all from Marys room, or the courtyard.. at all... during that time.

Its not a smoking gun, but its far from convincing data to base an "unseen trip outside" and "killed by a stranger met while street-walking" story on.


Cheery bye.

[Sam Flynn]

We have witness records from the court off and on until 3am... There is no record of any trip outside from any credible source all night

"On and off" being the operative phrase - must I keep reminding you, Mike? I've pointed out time and time again that Cox was in and out twice, Prater and Lewis only once each, and yet you still seem to be under the impression that the surveillance on Kelly's room was as tight as the Waco siege. As Don pointed out, nobody noted Blotchy's departure - isn't that sufficient to render any argument that "Nobody saw Mary leave" practically useless?

That, coupled with the fact that Lewis wafted past a door only fleetingly, and Cox's room was tucked away down the bottom of Miller's Court well away from Kelly's windows, means that it's hardly surprising neither report any sound or light emanating from the room. And, if there was no light, that does not necessarily mean that Mary had snuffed out the candle (with her fingers, obviously - eh, Caz? ) and curled up in the blissful embrace of Lethe for the night.

[Sam Flynn]

its far from convincing data to base an "unseen trip outside" and "killed by a stranger met while street-walking" story on

She was a street-walker, and, as part of her job description, undoubtedly picked up strangers. No surprises there.

Also - as we've demonstrated - the "unseen trip outside" counts for little or nothing. If we remove that from the equation, we're left with "killed by a stranger she met while street-walking" - which is no more extraordinary, in Whitechapel terms, than that which had happened at least four times since August that very year.

[caz]

Perry, you're just not reading. This isn't about proving that any of your 'suggestions' cannot be true. It's about you not being able to support your claims that they are the only ones that can be true, or that they are any more likely to be true than other possibilities thrown up by the case evidence or lack thereof.

If you've given it your best shot, it isn't nearly enough. It remains firmly in the land of conjecture.

The facts are too few and far between to allow you or anyone else to reach the type of conclusions you attempt to reach here.

And it doesn't help to try and shove them down the throats of those with the same array of facts as you.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

I suppose I have been trying to convince some of you to review the evidence without making unsupportable pre-conditions, like Sam did, with due respect Sam, ...saying that street walkers were killed that fall so thats how she likely met her killer....that statement has absolutely no basis in any accredditted evidence that we we know of, regarding Marys Kelly's most likely whereabouts after midnight. The only conclusion one can make that could be supported is that she didnt go out, based on only what is known,.. trusted evidence.

I can see that the fascination here for many is to see who knows more about whom or what, or about finding out who Anderson dated in high school....or where Abberline is buried. Nothing wrong with that at all, just not why I read or post here. I post to see if ideas from sources other than the leading authorities might have perspectives that arent tainted by the desire for topical knowledge creds, or the fear of suggesting something that may be proven wrong.

Thats been my point all along....heres an idea, prove it wrong. If not, maybe theres something there. Yet Ive been lambasted without once proving my suggestion untenable.

There is no known data that disproves my suggestion, but only I seem interested in exploring an early theory that so far, does not have direct evidence that refutes it. Since Im only talking about the one murder of a "street" prostitute here, in her room, that never on record has had a client in it, not a determined victim of Jack the Ripper, the man who killed 4 street prostitute women in their 40's on the streets or in yards,.... Hanbury was not like Millers Court at all Caz, any fence offered a way out, Marys room had one exit to a court with one exit.....and one woman in her room in her twenties, the last victim, Mary Kelly....its easier for me to detach the Ripperalia legend added to the evidence... that might skew perceptions.

I really dont care too much for the periphery, or the opinions Im told Im must live with Caz, no offense intended towards you or anyone.

Regards.

[Tom_Wescott]

Since Im only talking about the one murder of a "street" prostitute here, in her room, that never on record has had a client in it, not a determined victim of Jack the Ripper, the man who killed 4 street prostitute women in their 40's on the streets or in yards,.... Hanbury was not like Millers Court at all Caz, any fence offered a way out, Marys room had one exit to a court with one exit...

I see some serious progress here. You've acknowledged Liz Stride as a victim of Jack the Ripper. Once again, brazos to you.

Regarding the alleged age of the victims, we must think visually, since the Ripper likely didn't ask for their birth certs. This being the case, we have:

Polly Nichols - looked about 30
Annie Chapman - looked about 40
Liz Stride - looked about 28
Catherine Eddowes - seems to have looked her age
Mary Kelly - looked about 30

So, we have three women who looked about 30 and two who looked in their 40's. Mary ain't so special, she just happened to have her own room, that's all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

...saying that street walkers were killed that fall so thats how she likely met her killer....that statement has absolutely no basis in any accredditted evidence that we we know of

Mike - we have no "accredited evidence" that Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Tabram, Smith, Coles and others in the Whitechapel series met their killer that way either. However, given that many of these were streetwalkers chances are that they met their assassins in precisely that way, yet we have not one witness who can attest to this.

Yet, do we really need witnesses in these cases, when it's a fair bet that these women's position in life made them vulnerable to such a fate? I shouldn't be surprised if precisely the same were true of most prostitute murders before or since. If so, then the slaying of a sleeping Mary Kelly by an intruder would be statistically, if not definitively, less likely than the usually-accepted scenario.