Soliciting or night attack.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I accept your point about the neices version in your opinion being fiction, however I also noted you ended by saying in all probability.
The fact is we just dont know what can be interpreted as fact, and what can be assumed to be fiction, what witnesses do we dismiss, and who do we accept.
The neices version contains phrases which have one sensing truth, 'All right luv dont pull me along', and her always singing.
We all have our ways of trying to calculate truth, I for one look for 'phrases 'which look beyond lies , eg Praters 'She [ Kelly] was wearing her jacket and bonnet, I dont own any'.
As for distortion.
I would say a 'Blotchy faced' man carrying a quart of ale, and a 'fine looking gentleman' with a top hat[ not silk], and standing at ones door, and following a couple into a court, were chalk and cheese apart, and most be more, then loss of memory on either Aunt or Neices part surely.
I would say one of four possibilties are there.
a]The interviewer of the neice[ Wilson, or Farson cant remember] was telling porkies.
b] Neice was telling porkies
c] Aunt was telling porkies
d] Cox saw both men with Kelly, the second was not reported at the time, but may have been a reason they initially took hutchinson seriously.
If its [c] then we proberly cant trust Mrs Coxs version of events that night, and we could take Blotchy out of the frame as to even being there.
Way off thread ,but I have always had a niggling doubt to Blotchys existance,
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

however I also noted you ended by saying in all probability.

I think "in all overwhelming probability" may have been nearer the mark.

The neice's account does not contain elements of truth, but seems strongly indicative, instead, of a story that been heavily embellished over time, and since we're dealing with second-hand hearsay taken a long time after the event, this is largely to be expected. The reality of Cox's original account, which involved a shabbily dressed man, was inervitably supplanted by the obviously fictional presence of a "fine-looking gentleman" wearing a top hat. Coincidence that the suspect in the account just happened to change in order to embrace the latest "Gentleman Jack" myths that were then doing the rounds? Not at all.

There is simply no contest, in terms of evidential value, between primary sources from the period (in this case, police reports and inquest transcripts) and a second-hand piece of uncorroborated hearsay that contradicted nearly everything that appeared in the original document.

The neice's account is fiction.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

I have always had a niggling doubt to Blotchys existance,
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

don't say so.

A gentleman like you shouldn't upset Chava and Celesta.


Amitiés,
David

[Observer]

Hi Ben, upon what evidence do you base your assumption that Mary Ann Cox did not bring men back to her room ?

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

I can't say that Mrs. Cox never brought clients home, but she would hardly have withheld such a detail if it occured on the night of Kelly's murder.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

I remember this argument! Didn't it go on for ages on the old board?

In any case, Cox is fairly clear in her statement at the inquest. She says 'I am a widow and get my living on the streets'. In other accounts of this she says 'I am a widow and an unfortunate'. Either way, she admits to being a prostitute. She further says that on the occasion she saw Kelly with Blotchy-Face, she was in her room for a quarter of an hour before she left. She came back at 1.00 am, stayed a minute or two (possibly to use the chamber-pot) and left again. She didn't come back until 3.00 am.

It's possible she had a man with her on the first occasion, but it doesn't sound as if she brought anyone back afterwards. Maybe she just couldn't 'break' after that. If she did have a customer, she probably would not known his name or how to contact him.

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

My strong suspicion is that Mrs. Cox encountered her clients on the streets and serviced them there, at least on the night of Kelly's death.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Who was she renting the room off? McCarthy?

Three reasons why she might of kept it to herself should she have entertained a client in her room on the night of the murder. Firstly perhaps she didn't want to incur the wrath of her landlord by admitting to bringing home clients.

Secondly (at the opposite pole) it's possible her landlord would have wanted a cut of her earnings.

Thirdly if she admitted to the police that she had taken a man back to her room, wouldn't they have wanted to interview him? In short wouldn't it have been in her interest to keep it to herself should she have entertained a man in her room on the night of the murder?

Pushing the limits in stating the above I'll admit, but entirely possible.

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

I personally find it impossible to accept that McCarthy was oblivious to casual prostitution taking place on his premises. Cox was honest enough in her admission to earning her money on the streets, so she was very unlikely to have feared either the wrath of McCarthy or the indignation of any clients she took home that night, otherwise she could easily have lied about the reaons for her comings and goings during the small hours that night.

Fundamentally, the type of witness who is circumspect enough to divulge the nature of her business that night doesn't strike me as one who would conceal potentially crucial details pertaining to the case, such as the presence of other men in the vicinity of Miller's Court and their obvious potential capacity as corroborative witnesses for a murder investigation.

The absence of any reference to clients being brought home by Cox that night may be taken, I suggest, as a strong indication that there weren't any, and that inferentially, any business she procured was conducted away from her room.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chava]

Ben, I agree that its most likely Cox took care of her punters somewhere in the open air. However she might have had a trick back to her room--she testifies she was there for 15 minutes so it's possible she had company. But even if she did, it would be unlikely that she could produce him for the inquest. I doubt too many punters gave the girls their real names and addresses. As for McCarthy's reaction to the fact that prostitution was being carried on in his salubrious court, I'm sure he was shocked! Shocked!! But the fact remains he categorized Kelly to the police as a prostitute and yet allowed her to stay in her room. He didn't kick her out when he discovered that piece of news. I doubt he gave a damn one way or the other.

But the unpaid back-rent still sticks in my craw. I used to think he killed her. Now I think it was Blotchy-Face. But I would love a believable reason for that owed back-rent. One that didn't include an poor girl down on her luck and a visit to the landlord from the Baby Jesus and/or the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come...

[Sox]

Why? I mean you all keep saying that you do not think Cox and Kelly did not bring clients back to their rooms, but you never actually say WHY.

Lets be honest for a minute here. I assume McCarthy wasn't a blithering idiot, so he's hardly likely to hold his hands up and admit these women were using his property for prostitution less he lay himself open to charges of keeping a brothel. Cox is hardly likely to say so for basically the same reason.

And do we assume that Cox & Kelly were stupid too? I mean, where is the logic in being a prostitute, having a perfectly good empty room, and then servicing your clients in the street???? Now obviously, if the customer they pick up is not going to make it worth their while, then fair enough, but we all too often assume that all the men that these women picked up just wanted a quick knee trembler against a wall.

What if the likes of Cox and Kelly were able to offer something more? Like thirty minutes in a nice warm room for a few bob more? They would be able to make more money, & by taking on less clients, than their sisters on the street. Perhaps the reason that Cox did not take anyone back to her room that night was the simple one, she did not find a customer willing to pay the extra. Nichols,Chapman, Stride & Eddowes did not have that option, so they died in the street.

I firmly place Kelly as a victim of the Whitechapel Killer. For me this means that he approached her on the premise of being a customer, and struck at the opportune moment. That moment was once he had her alone in No13, I bet he could hardly believe his luck.

[Hunter]

knee trembler

Be careful about the quick knee trembler against the wall, Sox. Someone may presume your giving out unattainable information.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[DVV]

I agree with all that post (and it hurts me, my friend Sox), except for the last two sentences.
Because Mary wasn't a random victim.
"Could hardly believe his luck" ?
Indeed. He hadn't killed for more than 5 weeks. Was Mary the only prostitute with private lodgings ?

Amitiés,
David

edit: Hunter?! you're here ? I was referring to Sox' post. Well, that's your time... Sun is rising in Provence, but my bottle is still half....empty.

[Sox]

Ask yourself a question David:

Did the Whitechapel Killer murder every woman he approached?

If the answer to that question is no, then one victim out of five had her own private room so yes, I bet he could not believe his luck. How many prostitutes in the whole of the East End had private rooms does not really matter, it is how many, out of the women the killer targeted, had them.

And I think they were ALL random victims.

[DVV]

.

And I think they were ALL random victims.

Well, you may be right, but that's simply not my take.
Is that a problem ?

Amitiés,
David