Soliciting or night attack.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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

Amitiés,
David

[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

[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]

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

Very good point Michael. I still have some rather large issues with some aspects of the Kelly saga, I have not yet formed an opinion on this issue. Respectfully Dave

[claire]

Well, with 20 yards of very narrow passageway, you'd need to be pretty sure of finding what you're after up there, but as you say, Michael, there were privies up there, and plenty of people referred to the Court as McCarthy's Rents. So if it was an intruder, it would likely be someone who was sufficiently familiar with the area, and had been there before...which speaks loudly against Mr Astrakhan in all his finery, who surely (surely?) would have been noticed by someone in the past.

One question: do we know from any of her friends that she was in the practice of bringing clients back to the room? Others in the court don't seem to have done.

[DVV]

Hi Claire,

Apparently, Blotchy was a client that she brang back home.

...and there was also one Joseph Fleming, who used to visit her...

Amitiés,
David

[claire]

Well, technically, David, Fleming wasn't a client in the strictest sense. And we just don't know that Blotchy wasn't Fleming, or someone else of his status...

[DVV]

Hmmm, I think safe to say Blotchy wasn't Fleming (Blotchy's face, age, carotty moustache do not fit...I can't imagine Mary "very fond" of Blotchy), but a mere client.

Amitiés,
David