Soliciting or night attack.

[The Good Michael]

I think the proximity to the passageway of Kelly's room, and the fact that it was the first room one passed on the way to the privy or water pump, and that it was on the first floor, made it the most easily accessible... for rooms of prostitutes. In that regard, it wasn't much different from available yards that were also in the vicinity of privies, coincidently. That could easily make it the scene of just a regular ripper attack as the others. Evidence in the form of statements, believed or not, point to Kelly's solicitation, however.

I'm on the fence here.

Mike

[protohistorian]

Not unique, perhaps, in the sense that her room could be seen as a "place of work", in the same sense that the ("roomless") others' workplaces were dark alleys, back-yards and the corners of secluded, dimly-lit squares.

It seems to me that in the absence of the criminals understanding, either side could be correct based on what we know. In the matter of understanding the criminal, It seems to me he had plenty of opportunity to learn indoor attacks before November. We cannot assume Mary was in any way unique in having a room of her own. Therefore it seems to me that the outdoor nature of the venues represents his comfort zone, somewhere he feels very comfortable engaging in hunting behaviors. If this is so, there would be an internal to the killer preference for outdoor venues, a very powerful one. In such an interpretation two things are hinted at. 1. that the killer of Mary did not possess the psychopathology that killed the others, or 2. that some form of powerful motivator was guiding the killer to select Kelly as a victim. I rather suspect that the difference in Kelly's appearance/stature strongly mitigates for the first. Looking at Kelly as a stand alone crime we see differences in wounds, degree of mutilation, venue of attack, and victim stature. I believe it is reasonable to start considering the very real possibility that Kelly does not belong to the string of killings known as the c5. I think this consideration colors what we perceive. Many ripperologists assume solicitation as a continuation of victim typology. I believe to assume this variable is to color ones interpretation to the point that the answer is unknowable based on current data, Respectfully Dave

[DVV]

I love this logic, Sam... Let's try to reverse it...
All the Ripper victims have been killed indoors, that's it...?

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

You could be right, Sam, but the fact is that she wasn't the only woman having a room for herself, however that this indoors murder is unique in the Ripper story

Not unique, perhaps, in the sense that her room could be seen as a "place of work", in the same sense that the ("roomless") others' workplaces were dark alleys, back-yards and the corners of secluded, dimly-lit squares.

[DVV]

You could be right, Sam, but the fact is that she wasn't the only woman having a room for herself, however that this indoors murder is unique in the Ripper story, and still more telling, it has probably been the last crime of the Ripper - at least in a full/real "ripper style".

So all this, to me, says something, or at least, could very well say something.

Amitiés,
David


edit: nobody, except Hutch, has seen her soliciting after midnight... I'd say if she is a random victim, then Blotchy has to be the killer. But if he's innocent...

[Sam Flynn]

Her muder occured... just some days after Barnett moved out.
It certainly says something.

Indeed, Dave. For one thing, it says that she was free to go out soliciting as she pleased, and furthermore that she would be able to bring back clients to an empty room. (Incidentally, her having a room to herself might have allowed her to increase her asking-price. Not a bad thing for someone 28s in arrears.)

So there's no need to believe, merely on the strength of Barnett's moving out, that any "secret knowledge" is implied on the part of her killer, nor that she was anything other than a random target.

[DVV]

I have never understood why a killer would take a chance on breaking into a prostitute's room when he could be invited in as a client. I think she opened the door for Jack and that she knew him in some capacity. It is also possible that she was soliciting and brought him back to her room.

c.d.

Hi all,

really this post is worth reading twice.
CD is so right, the "intruder" scenario is almost unviable...

Indeed, there's even evidences that she wasn't a random victim.
Her muder occured after 5 weeks of "inactivity" from the Ripper, and just some days after Barnett moved out.
It certainly says something.

Amitiés,
David

[Hunter]

Hello Everyone,

Though it may seem careless for Mary Jane to take chances with strangers, we should remember that was exactly what all of these women did. Stride and Eddowes were well aware of the danger also and went to their deaths anyway. Their behavior is what made them easy victims even after it was known that a killer was on the loose. They had to take the chance . " Its the Ripper or the bridge for me" as one woman put it.

If the murderer waited to break into her room to kill her, he went about it the hard way. Standing outside to ' scope the scene' so to speak might have brought on suspicion by others.

These women worked a territory where they would solicite their clients, then, take them to a secluded location for the transaction. The killer got iceing on the cake this time in the fact that Mary had her own room.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[claire]

Hi Addy,
Oh, good, at least someone else remembers something like this I don't know that I would necessarily make the comparison with other victims, though, as it seems likely that they wouldn't have had the advance warning that Mary would have had if she heard someone coming into the room, even if she was asleep before they got in. Those couple of seconds give her chance to yell out, raise her arms et cetera before the killer could get to her throat.

[Addy]

Hi Claire,

Yes, I remember reading about some defensive founds. She could have received those after being attacked in her sleep. However, usually the victims were quite helpless after their throat was cut, so it does seem to contradict the sleeping theory.

Greetings,

Addy

[claire]

Am I getting confused, or were there signs of defensive wounds on her arms/hands? Not that this necessarily rules out her having been asleep and waking a little at the point of any intruder's entry/start of the attach, of course.

If this was a client she was getting properly undressed for, then it would (logically, although that could mean nothing) seem likely that it would be a client she knew reasonably well. I can't see that she would need to bother with a casual client, and nor am I convinced that she would invite a stranger into her room, given the reports of her fears. Also, as has been extensively discussed elsewhere, it doesn't appear that she was that fussed about making money (rent arrears etc) to the extent that she would go to the trouble to find a total stranger and bring him back to the room...but then it's no secret that I don't think it was a total stranger at all.

[Sam Flynn]

The interesting thing, Ben, is that we know that Kelly did return home intoxicated that night... and she brought a man back with her.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Perhaps she felt like leaving the fleas out for a walk

...Or crushing them within the vice-like grip of The Roll!

I can see myself taking a few seconds to bundle up an unwanted blanket before casting it aside to ensure that it really is "out of the way", but even if the killer wasn't responsible, and Kelly did the bundling herself, she could easily have returned home intoxicated and not thus inclined to bother with either the blanket unbundling process or fully undressing herself, hence the draped sock.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

That's just the problem. I can't see anyone taking time to folding the blanket into an excessively neat and compacted wrap as though in preparation for CCF camp.

Kelly, earlier that evening, before she went out on her rounds, just to give her mattress an airing? Perhaps she felt like leaving the fleas out for a walk

and would argue instead that the sheet was simply bunched up and shoved aside, most probably by the killer.

Again, Ben, why on earth would he even "bunch" it - still less roll it - and not just chuck it to one side out of the way? Why on earth would he then pick up one of her stockings and drape it neatly over the top of the "bunch", or roll (as the case may be)?

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I really can't see Jack (or whoever it was) taking that amount of time

That's just the problem. I can't see anyone taking time to folding the blanket into an excessively neat and compacted wrap as though in preparation for CCF camp. I don't personally see any compelling pictorial evidence of excessive folding or wrapping, and would argue instead that the sheet was simply bunched up and shoved aside, most probably by the killer.

All the best,
Ben