Did Mary know her attacker?

[perrymason]

Fisherman,

You must be tired of writing "may have", especially about Cox. She was reported to be quite unattractive for one, no customers we know of may be her regular Thursday night, despite her efforts. And the police reverted to her statements about Blotchy Man no later than Nov 16th, as their suspect, last seen with Kelly.

They replaced a story by a man Abberline thought had to be telling the truth, to that of someone more trustworthy.

I dont see any reason why we should doubt her testimony.

Cheers bud.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"Fisherman, You must be tired of writing "may have"..."

On the contrary, Michael - it is when you write "must have" or "would have" that you are in for some real fatigue. Besides, "may have" applies well here, since I am not uninclined to believe her testimony. Could all be true, of course.
Then again, it is not as if raided brothels and freshly caught hookers have a tradition of spilling the beans by handing over customer lists and helping out to identify punters, is it?

As for Cox being a reportedly unattractive woman, I fail to see why such a prerogative should mean that customers would accept to live with her looks on the street but not inside her room...?

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Michael writes:

"Fisherman, You must be tired of writing "may have"..."

On the contrary, Michael - it is when you write "must have" or "would have" that you are in for some real fatigue. Besides, "may have" applies well here, since I am not uninclined to believe her testimony. Could all be true, of course.
Then again, it is not as if raided brothels and freshly caught hookers have a tradition of spilling the beans by handing over customer lists and helping out to identify punters, is it?

As for Cox being a reportedly unattractive woman, I fail to see why such a prerogative should mean that customers would accept to live with her looks on the street but not inside her room...?

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

Fair points my friend. Heres another salient point in the street/room prostitute debate. Many East End Brothels were being subjected to an anti-vice crusade by a rich local brewer, and perhaps a few dozen were closed during 1887-1888.

It was said that every brothel in the East End had a portrait of the man, being someone they feared trouble from more than the police. According to the mans biographer, Guy Thorne, he personally shut down 200 brothels across London during that period.

Many women displaced moved away. Many though, of the brothel standard variety, walked the East End streets that Fall, having been turned out due to the closures.

Now....Wonder why the guy looked for street walkers that Fall? There were more than ever, even with 62 operating Brothels in the area according to H Division constables. Leaving roughly 1200 women working the streets in the area.

Its not how did he find them, its more like how could he not find one outdoors?

Cheers again F man.

[Sam Flynn]

That of course is based upon Random Selection by the killer, which is not what is being suggested, nor is it proven. Had he desires for specific organs, the evidence exists in at least two victims to counter that view, and his choice of outdoor venues is therefore fine... if only interested in obtaining abdominal organs that would be easiest under the circumstances to obtain.

That's the point, though - "IF"! - in other words, we can only speculate. It's next to worthless using speculative or unverifiable criteria as "benchmarks" in comparing the crimes. Compiling lists of such criteria only compounds matters, especially when one considers that many of these features weren't even verifiable at the time!

"We've been here before, but the same rules apply - namely that it's important to consider which factors were indisputably within the killer's gift to influence,"....


Like when he kills, where he kills, who he kills, what he does and what he takes you mean?

Indeed - those are good places to start. The trick is to stop there, to keep it simple, and avoid explicit (or unconscious) attributions of significance.

For example: "Victim X was 47 years old, victim Y was 43; therefore it's significant that Jack had a thing about 40-something women; ergo the age of the victims is a significant factor when comparing the crimes". Note that the attribution of significance to the victims' age is in itself a speculation, which is derived from another speculation that Jack had some predilection for women over forty.

It's fine to speculate or theorise about such things, but it's inappropriate to include such speculative criteria in any objective list of the features of the crimes.

What it leaves us with Sam, is absolutely none of the information that any investigator worth a pinch of salt would consider some of the most relevant information concerning the murders.

It leaves us with just about the only truths we have at our disposal, and there's nowt wrong with that in my book

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I understand the observation but regrettably cannot agree with it.

Cox had no qualms about admitting she was a prostitute. If she brought clients home, it naturally follows that she'd have no qualms about admitting that either, but since no clients are mentioned, it seems reasonable to infer that she didn't bring any home.

Hi Glenn,

No offense taken, but I have always believed that comparisons with other serial killers are essential when contemplating unsolved cases, with JTR being no exception.

Best wishes!
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Sam,

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Dont worry Tom, Ill not bring the swedish physician into this, but I was thinking in broad terms that IF there was any credibilty to the story from Teaching hospitals that had the American Doctor offering bounty for uteri to accompany research papers back to America, at least one source didnt deny that when questioned directly later...then in a long shot look I wondered could a student get access to Hospital records concerning known unfortunates medical histories. Like for study or a paper.

And eager to get the 20 pounds per uterus offered, and being a bit of a surgical freak, a cold young fella who cared less about cutting, seeing blood and guts or the lives of poor whores....might he look for either histories of uterine dysfunction or damage, or the opposite.

Not any theory. Just a question to explore a random, highly unlikely, idea. Sam mentioned the sum would be the equivalent of 1100 pounds or so today. Not chump change in Victorian London.

Cheers.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Fisherman,

I understand the observation but regrettably cannot agree with it.

Cox had no qualms about admitting she was a prostitute. If she brought clients home, it naturally follows that she'd have no qualms about admitting that either, but since no clients are mentioned, it seems reasonable to infer that she didn't bring any home.

I agree with that, Ben. It's rather plain and simle - no need to make things more unnecessary complicated than they already are.

As for comparisons with other serial killers, I withold that I find it to be a questionable and maybe even dangerous approach, especially when people repeatedly refer to Ted Bundy, since the Ripper wasn't very much like Bundy in the first place.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Sam,

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

That post was even shorter than the ones delivered occasionally by Jenni Pegg, which is quite an achievement in itself.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Cox had no qualms about admitting she was a prostitute. If she brought clients home, it naturally follows that she'd have no qualms about admitting that either, but since no clients are mentioned, it seems reasonable to infer that she didn't bring any home."

Good, sound reasoning, Ben! But one of the small things that belong to the discussion is that she was probably/maybe never asked IF she brought customers home. She admitted that she was an unfortunate, but that does not go to prove that she would venture any further information on the subject if not especially asked to do so.
As I have said before, I have no problems accepting if she came clear one hundred percent about the whole thing. I am just pointing to the fact that there is room enough to allow for a suspiscion that maybe she didn´t. Plus Praters "young man" seems to reinforce the possibility that this could be the case.

And Glenn, I agree that one should not drag things into a discussion that further complicate an already complicated matter - unless they may actually belong to the matter and may shed new light on it. If Cox and Prater actually did turn tricks in the court - and it would have been both safer (well, perhaps not in Kellys case...), warmer, more comfortable and probably economically advantageous - then it opens up for a different view on how credible it would be that Kelly serviced clients in HER room.

The best, Ben, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

She admitted that she was an unfortunate, but that does not go to prove that she would venture any further information on the subject if not especially asked to do so.

It would incredibly strange, though, for Mrs. Cox to admit to being an unfortunate, recount her actions and movements during the night in question, but completely fail to mention that she brought clients home. There wouldn't be any logic or reason for her to have kept quiet about that detail. She wasn't specifically asked about a number of things, but she introduced them anyway. It's a distinct possibility that she suppressed such a detail, but very unlikely in my view.

It wouldn't have been more economical to turn tricks in Miller's Court. Quite the reverese. If the prostitutes solicited clients where they encountered them, they could get through them at a faster rate, rather than having to keep trekking back and forth back home only for some shabby client to sully the sheets. Mary Cox appears to have recognised this.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

It would incredibly strange, though, for Mrs. Cox to admit to being an unfortunate, recount her actions and movements during the night in question, but completely fail to mention that she brought clients home.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that she (or any other witness in any other case) should have felt obliged to elaborate any further than necessary.

[Chava]

As per the inquest transcript, no one asked Cox if she was accompanied when she came home. Given the level of euphemism you see there--'unfortunate', 'make my living on the streets' etc I'm not surprised. After all, the coroner and jury may not have thought Cox's clients were relevant to Kelly's killing.

Small point though, and not relevant to this thread, that I thought of when I was checking out Cox's testimony. When Cox gets back to her room, there's no one standing in the court. Hutchinson says he stood there 3/4 of an hour after Kelly went into her room with Mr A. So it sounds like the only person who went into the court during that time was Sarah Lewis. Prater was too early, Cox was too late. Lewis says she saw someone stand opposite the doss-house apparently looking into the court. Hutchinson would therefore have seen Lewis. But he doesn't mention her. I'm a bit surprised at this. True, the cops may not have asked him if he saw anyone else. But given the almost forensic level of description he gives of Mr A, I'm surprised he's completely forgotten all about Mrs L!

[Ben]

Hi all,

If Mary Cox had brought a client home, it would have obviously been germane to the inquiry because that client would have assumed the status of a potential witness. It wouldn't have been mere elaboration, but a relevent detail to include. The fact that she didn't mention bringing home a client ought to be a reasonable indicator that there wasn't one.

Regards,
Ben

[Dan Norder]

As for comparisons with other serial killers, I withold that I find it to be a questionable and maybe even dangerous approach,

Yeah, that's a common statement among people who would prefer to just make nonsense up off the top of their heads and expect it to be treated more seriously than what the people who actually know what they're talking about have to say.

especially when people repeatedly refer to Ted Bundy, since the Ripper wasn't very much like Bundy in the first place.

And you know that, how exactly? Because you say so?

Bundy is certainly not the most common killer named in reference to Jack, especially with so many better comparisons out there, but Bundy is not necessarily a bad comparison either. Bundy did take body parts from some of his victims, for example.

I suppose if this were a website devoted to some unknown species of bird that we only know about through a couple of rumored sightings and some traces left behind we'd have the same bunch of dodos trying to say that the last thing we ought to do is base our conclusions about what it might have been like on other known birds. They'd say, "Oh, well, Mystery Bird was spotted flying, I'm going to ignore how other birds fly and assume that this bird had an anti-gravity organ in its thorax. People spotted what looks like bird droppings at some of the scenes, but instead of going with that because other birds leave droppings let's just assume that it was really gunpowder because... well, because I just made that up off the top of my head and it's just as valid as anyone else's comments becuase they don't know. Screw the experts, Mystery Bird probably wasn't even hatched from an egg."

Sometimes I really honestly and truly wonder how some people survive in the world with such a fundamental lack of sense. You'd think they'd just run in front of cars and get splattered all the time because they can't seem to put together the knowledge of the damage that other cars have done when people walked in front of them with the potential effects of this unknown car driving toward them.