Soliciting or night attack.

[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...

[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

[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 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

[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 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

[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

[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

[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

[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 Ben,
According to Mary Cox neice in a interview way back, her aunt had a partner then , infact not long married, and she was waiting at her door in the court for him to arrive back from the pub , apparently he was a rather heavy drinker.
So I would not assume Cox was a practising prostitute.
Oral history obviously.
Strange, but Mrs Cox has never been doubted on her story of blotchy, yet she comes across as a bit of story teller, with her descriptions of kellys morals, and a fine ' posh gentleman' standing at kellys door, and she allegedly informed her neice, she observed all of this whilst standing at her door[ armed with rolling pin so to speak].
So what happened to her initial statement to the police which has her following Mary And Blotchy into the court.?
Question . Did Blotchy exist, or did the 'Posh gent'?
Sorry of thread.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

I'm afraid the neice's tale had been widely discredited as fiction, with considerable justification. Since the account in question differs so markedly from Cox's original version of events, it's quite clear that the latter had become heavily distorted and embellished over time with Cox herself having very little to do with it, in all probability.

Cox herself was very open about the fact that she earned her living on the streets, describing herself as an "unfortunate". She was most assuredly a "practicing prostitute".

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
According to Mary Cox neice in a interview way back, her aunt had a partner then , infact not long married, and she was waiting at her door in the court for him to arrive back from the pub , apparently he was a rather heavy drinker.
So I would not assume Cox was a practising prostitute.
Oral history obviously.
Strange, but Mrs Cox has never been doubted on her story of blotchy, yet she comes across as a bit of story teller, with her descriptions of kellys morals, and a fine ' posh gentleman' standing at kellys door, and she allegedly informed her neice, she observed all of this whilst standing at her door[ armed with rolling pin so to speak].
So what happened to her initial statement to the police which has her following Mary And Blotchy into the court.?
Question . Did Blotchy exist, or did the 'Posh gent'?
Sorry of thread.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

I wouldn't say any "leap of faith" is required to envisage a scenario in which Kelly encounters her killer on the street. I'd only observe that the intruder scenario is by no means less likely. I realise that Kelly "could" have used her room, but she may not have wanted to, besides which we know that her prostitute neighbour, Mary Cox, was clearly not using her room for business on the night of the murder.

Best regards,
Ben

[Hunter]

Sox, I believe your synopsis on Mary Kelly is correct- albeit a sad one. All of the victims shared a common trait that led them to their doom. The murderer did not have to change his to find them. If "lesser" prostitutes could use flop house beds for "work", Mary certainly could use her room.

I also agree that some aspects of Ripperology have strayed into the abstract- even to the point, now, that to some, there was no Jack The Ripper. Maybe its natural, since real new tangible information is rarely found.

Maybe this quote from the Times written on the day after Mary's death sums it up best.


'When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction'

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Sox]

Time and, I suppose, imagination has led me to think of Mary Kelly as a different 'class' of prostitute. I see Nichols,Chapman,Stride and possibly Eddowes as being women who sold their bodies for the price of a bed, or to fill their bellies, and perhaps even for gin. I really think Kelly was a full time prostitute, and I see her hooking up with men for protection, not love.

Basically I think Barnett was lying his rear end off, and that he was her 'Bully'. A lot of his statement/testimony sounds hollow and contrite. One minute she's a sober woman, next minute he's seen her drunk 'several times', he even admits they were booted out of their former lodgings for drunkeness/rent arrears. They 'decide' to live together after meeting just once for a drink, & he calls her Marie Jeanette when nobody else does.

I also find her rent arrears rather baffling. I just do not see McCarthy as the charitable type, and it's pretty obvious she had no intention of paying that rent, she was earning, even spending money in his shop! I think that Kelly was on a downward spiral and I ask myself, 'if she had not died that night, how long would it have been before she was trapped in the same kind of life that the other four had'? Not long.

It is more than likely, that by 1888 Kelly was starting to struggle in her trade. She was above average age for a prostitute (avg age was 22) & out of the C5 she was the odd one out, but not because she was so young. The story of 'Black Mary' would have been a girl past her prime driving off the younger competition I think.

I find it quite incredible that it requires a leap of faith to see Kelly picking up the man who killed her, on the streets, she was a prostitute after all, and it seems fairly obvious that the Whitechapel Killers victims chose the spots where they died, so why not Kelly too? Perhaps this really has turned into an industry, & there really is no stock in just going with simplicity anymore because that won't sell books.