Soliciting or night attack.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[Hunter]

Civilized debate

Hello Ben,

I just want to say that I've enjoyed sharing this thread with you and though I may disagree, I think you've made your points with skill and tact. I don't know why some honest disagreements turn into personal assaults, but having participated in the Stride thread for some time it seems that they eventually evolve that way as each side digs in it heels. I don't know about you, but I participate in this forum as a temporary escape from the trials of life as well as the interest in the subject, which is what a hobby is for. Those that set themselves up as arbitrators of what is correct, then come to the conclusion that someone who disagrees is ignorant tend to show their own ignorance in the process.

Anyway, back to the subject of this thread. I will quote Sugden, who's opinion I will admit I am partial to.

'It is probable that the victims accosted or were accousted by the murderer in thoroughfares like Whitechapel Road and Commercial Street, and that they then conducted him themselves to the secluded spots where they were slain. Thiis was certainly the case with Mary Kelly, who died in her own room in Miller's Court. And it was probably true with the others. Martha Tabram is known to have serviced another client in George Yard just three hours before she was killed there. Annie Chapman met her death in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street and there is reason to believe that she led her killer there. The house is known to be a resort of prostitutes, it was within a few hundred yards of Annie's lodging house at 35 Dorset Street... Bucks Row, Dutfields Yard and the dark corner of Mitre Square were also frequently used by prostitutes.'

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Chava]

Chava, you really like Blotchy too much.

Amitiés,
David

Well, it's true. I like him a lot

That having been said, it's eminently possible that Blotchy-Face and Wideawake-Hat-Man are the same guy.

This is what Lewis says at the inquest:

Sarah Lewis deposed: I live at 24, Great Pearl-street, and am a laundress. I know Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, and went to her house at 2, Miller's-court, at 2.30a.m. on Friday. It is the first house. I noticed the time by the Spitalfields' Church clock. When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court.

This is what Cox says at the inquest:

A short, stout man, shabbily dressed. He had on a longish coat, very shabby, and carried a pot of ale in his hand.
[Coroner] What was the colour of the coat ? - A dark coat.
[Coroner] What hat had he ? - A round hard billycock.

You yourself pointed out on these boards quite a long time ago that at the time of the murders, billycock hats and wideawake hats were in fact the same style of hat, although later on in the century they did differ.

So do you still think I'm loving Blotchy-Face too much, David? It's likely Lewis saw him from the back as he was already in the entrance to the court when she got there. So she may not have noticed his face at all--in fact probably didn't, as she makes no attempt to describe it.

[DVV]

Hello Chava,

without Hutch, you could be right. But I simply think "Wideawake" was Hutch. And I don't think Hutch was Blotchy.

Amitiés,
David

[Garry Wroe]

So do you still think I'm loving Blotchy-Face too much, David? It's likely Lewis saw him from the back as he was already in the entrance to the court when she got there. So she may not have noticed his face at all--in fact probably didn't, as she makes no attempt to describe it.

The only problem being, Chava, that the man observed by Sarah Lewis was standing by the lodging house opposite the interconnecting passage. In other words, on the other side of the street.

it's eminently possible that Blotchy-Face and Wideawake-Hat-Man are the same guy.

Again, though, Sarah Lewis was unambiguous in her observation that the man with the woman and 'Wideawake' were different men.

Best wishes

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

I just want to say that I've enjoyed sharing this thread with you and though I may disagree, I think you've made your points with skill and tact.

Many thanks for the kind words, Hunter, and I extend the same. I must apologise for the recent adversarial interlude with the poster who decided to attack me unprovoked, although I'm pleased to see we're back on track now.

The problem I have with Sugden is that he relies rather too heavily, in my opinion, on the assumption that Hutchinson was not only truthful in his account but that he saw "Jack the Ripper", a belief that he later uses to support a rather tenuous case against poisoner Severin Klosowski. The certainty which he professes with regard to the manner in which Kelly met her attacker might therefore be considered unwarranted, especially in light of compelling evidence that Hutchinson's evidence was discredited shortly after it came to the fore. In almost all other respects, however, I would heartily endorse Sugden's work as an excellent guide to the Whitechapel murders.

Best regards,
Ben