Soliciting or night attack.

[claire]

Not convinced that Blotchy needed to be a stranger to Mary as much as he appeared to be a stranger to others (and it was, seemingly, just Mary Ann Cox who saw him, and with a none-too-detailed description besides...GH she ain't). I don't know that any of her acquaintances would have recognised Fleming, or her brother, or Morganstern/Morganstone/Morgan Stone/a bloke from Morganstown either, but they all appeared to have been known to Mary quite well.

Anyhow, a little off-topic.

[DVV]

For all we know, the loitering man and Blotchy-Face were one and the same.

Chava, you really like Blotchy too much.

Amitiés,
David

[Chava]

For all we know, the loitering man and Blotchy-Face were one and the same. Lewis only noticed the hat and not much else.

[Ben]

It would be a hell of a lot less suspicious if he acted like a punter as he presumably did with his other victims than for him to go up to peoples' homes and peering into their windows to see if the inhabitants were asleep or not.

Under ordinary circumstances I'd agree, M&P, but by November 1888 it had already been established that the killer was in the habit of "acting like a punter" in order to procure his victims. However intrusive "peering into windows" would seem to any potential witness, it at least had the advantage of not being associated with classic "ripper" behaviour. Indeed, this could explain why the blotchy suspect was given so much investigative precedent over the loitering man observed by Lewis, in addition to the fact that the former was observed in the company of the victim.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Given the crowded nature of the district, it would have been nigh on impossible for any one of Kelly's cohorts to keep track of all her other friends friends and acquaintances, so I wouldn't make the inference that a failure to identify the blotchy suspect must constitute evidence that he was a total stranger to Kelly. In addition, it's extremely unlikely that all her acquaintances were tracked down.

And I don’t buy into the fact that Blotchy left Kelly’s room only to return at a later time. If he did murder Kelly, he had her where he wanted her first time around, why take the risk of returning?

If blotchy did return subsequent to his first visit - and I'm certainly not nailing any firm colours to the mast in offering this as a possibility - he may have been deterred by the hustle and bustle in an around the court at that time, and thought it prudent to return at a quieter time, once he'd cased out the joint.

Best regards,
Ben

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I think it's more likely that he and Mary met on the street and went back to her room, rather than the Ripper letting himself in to do the business on her. It would be a hell of a lot less suspicious if he acted like a punter as he presumably did with his other victims than for him to go up to peoples' homes and peering into their windows to see if the inhabitants were asleep or not.

[Observer]

That is the entire point Ben. Women who work the streets depend on luck and chance, they have no expectations. The point is Ben, that for a woman who had her own room it was possible to offer something more than a fourpenny trick, and Kelly did have her own room.

Hi Sox

And did take a man back to her room late evening on the night preceding her murder. Whats more this man was never identified, which suggests to me the man was a stranger to Kelly. Mary Cox knew Kelly, she stated that she would be able to identify the man whom she saw with Kelly, it follows that she had not seen him in the company of Kelly prior to her sighting on the night of the 8th. Her description included the fact that the man had a blotchy face, quite distinctive in fact, not a single friend of Kelly, including Barnett, could place this man. Why? I would suggest that he was a stranger to Kelly. I believe Kelly picked him up in one of the bars she visited that night, or he picked her up.

He is a strong candidate for Kelly's murder.

One thing, if he did murder Kelly then he was a cool customer, Kelly was alive a full hour after Cox’s sighting, could you see the hit and run tactician of the previous murders wait a full hour before murdering Kelly? And I don’t buy into the fact that Blotchy left Kelly’s room only to return at a later time. If he did murder Kelly, he had her where he wanted her first time around, why take the risk of returning?

All the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Sox,

The point is Ben, that for a woman who had her own room it was possible to offer something more than a fourpenny trick, and Kelly did have her own room.

It was possible, certainly. I'm only wondering aloud as to its viability as a business strategy, as opposed to the much faster "turnover" that would inevitably have resulted from getting through more clients on the street at a faster rate. If she wanted to entice one client to remain in the room for the night, for example, she'd need to charge the equivalent of an average night's earning on the streets, and the chances are that only a select and comparatively wealthy few would have been willing to fork out for this, especially when sex with a prostitute indoors could have been procured at a grotty doss house for the usual price of a bed.

I probably sound like a panelist from Dragon's Den, but I trust you get the picture.

All the best,
Ben

[Sox]

She could not, therefore, have harboured any high expectations about the type of client she was likely to procure purely on the basis of having a room.

That is the entire point Ben. Women who work the streets depend on luck and chance, they have no expectations. The point is Ben, that for a woman who had her own room it was possible to offer something more than a fourpenny trick, and Kelly did have her own room.

And, as I keep saying, much of this is dependent on circumstance. If we believe Barnett then Kelly had only just gone back on the game, he had only been gone nine days & had been giving her money. On the other hand, if he was lying, and Kelly had never stopped working as a prostitute, then that is a different matter altogether. Was she hungry, did she really pay rent or was McCarthy taking a portion of her earnings instead, was she driven by drink?? It's much more than a simple question of 'was she soliciting'.

Of course Kelly, & Cox for that matter, would not take every client they picked up back to their rooms, and I agree that most of them would not have been worth the time but some, without question, would have been.

[Chava]

I"m not sure where a discussion of Cox and Kelly's habits in this regard gets us. Mary Jane Kelly was certainly killed in her room. Mary Ann Cox was certainly alive throughout the unpleasant and dangerous autumn/winter of 1888 and did not die at the hand of a serial killer. If Cox had had a man with her on the night she saw Kelly, I am certain she would have been unable to produce him at the inquest unless he himself came forward. We know that Kelly had a man back to her room with her on the night she died. I suspect that she had no hard-and-fast rule about room vs non-room.

[Ben]

Another worthless contribution from the purveyor of hysteria, pretty colours and pointless fonts. No surprises whatsoever that he couldn't respond to Garry's challenge to provide refutation of my observation rather than just wasting space with unprovoked insults.

Ben makes my skin crawl!

Well, that's my self-esteem in tatters and ruins.

Go and play with your crayons.

[Ben]

I am sorry Ben, but you buying into the premise that every prostitute in Whitechapel was incapable of nothing more than a fourpenny knee trembler is more than a little surprising.

I agree, Sox, but the salient point is that Mary Kelly was unlikely to have been especially selective about her clientele. A private room has advantages if the prostitute was inclined to use it for work, but we're still talking about a grotty hovel in a locality known for its reputation as a mecca for the "vicious and semi-criminal". She could not, therefore, have harboured any high expectations about the type of client she was likely to procure purely on the basis of having a room.

You mean.....exactly like they do in 2010? Now who is being naive'?

Quite possibly you, if you think people in 2010 regularly fork out the largest sums for the prostitues who were in the weakest positions to command them.

Best regards,
Ben

Yaaawwwnnn!

Like I said, ...

... you don't care if any of your assertions are reasonable or factually accurate, either way. You're a lobbyist!

Keep on lobbying!

Maybe someday, someone will fall for your bullshit, and come to believe that George Hutchinson was 'Jack the Ripper'.

---------

And maybe, someday, SB, you will provide the evidence that serves to undermine Ben's statement ...

How 'bout today?

... thinking – 120 years after the fact – that you are in any semblance of a position to know, or better yet, … say such a thing!

"120 years after the fact"

... rather than launchng into hysterical and unprovoked personal insults.

As for "hysterical", …

... you're a fraud.

An hysterical, sanctimonious, cowardly, bumptious, uppity fraud.

...

Now go and make an embarrassing nuisance of your shabby self elsewhere, ...

As for "unprovoked personal insults", …

Ben makes my skin crawl! And when I choose to insult him, is my business!

[Sox]

Oh, by all means, embrace the entertaining fallacy that clients were willing to pay lofty sums for the sheer luxury of spending a night with a prostitute in what was alluded to extensively as one of the worst streets in London

You mean.....exactly like they do in 2010? Now who is being naive'?

I am sorry Ben, but you buying into the premise that every prostitute in Whitechapel was incapable of nothing more than a fourpenny knee trembler is more than a little surprising. And nobody mentioned 'lofty sums' or 'toffs', which by the way, are stereotypes every bit as dated as your fourpenny whore. People did indeed go slumming in Whitechapel Ben, thats a documented fact.

What these women charged, and what they did for the money, and how often they sold their bodies, depended very much upon circumstance, exactly as it does today.

[Garry Wroe]

And maybe, someday, SB, you will provide the evidence that serves to undermine Ben's statement rather than launchng into hysterical and unprovoked personal insults.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.