why did kelly trust her killer

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Let me just address this one point that you are so adamant about. Is it really so[B]unreasonable to believe that a prostitute such as Mary would go out soliciting customers and if she did so would she slam the door to her room and yell out late at night "hey everybody, I'm going out whoring?" Her neighbors were not monitoring her comings and goings in a non-stop 24 hour vigil. This fact seems to get overlooked.

c.d.

See, thats why I like debating with you Fisherman, and Sam, and Paul, and many others here,... because you can find constructive civilized ways to disagree with points.

I know that most peoples guts refuse to consider that there may have been another madman capable of doing the things done to Mary, but murders of street prostitutes with knives and mutilations occurred before and after this Canonical Spree. Its not "if" there were others, its "whom" among the others might be capable,... and if Jack doesn't kill Alice McKenzie, then you have one right there. And my bet is that a guy who makes torso's out of complete women might be able to handle the Millers Court gore too.

Id rather seek a killer in the clues, than seek only the clues that add up to my preferred killer.

I think some are coming to realize that my position on Marys location when her killer meets her isn't so off the wall, and in fact its about the only conclusion we can make using only what is on record, and accepted as truthful by the authorities.

Not only was Marys location, postmortem cutting and initial attack unlike the Ripper kills, it also comes with a potential lookout, which may have prompted the very rapid issuance of the Pardon for Accomplices, less than 24 hours, issued on Saturday afternoon. After Abberline and a few others re-sieved the ashes Saturday morning.

So...you have a killer going to her room, killing her in her underwear, someone perhaps watching pre or post kill, and a killer that locks the door behind him. And yet this is the same guy who only kills middle aged women women who are walking the streets...until Mary that is, fully dressed, never makes any attempt to conceal or prohibit access to the corpse, and is believed to have worked alone?

Its like a game, just shape the MO to fit the desired killer.

My best regards Mr Fish.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:
"I do think its kind of ironic that I should be arguing for the use of existing accredited statements, and then being accused of being "on crack" for doing so."

I am not arguing that your version of Kellys death must be wrong, Michael, far from it. It makes perfect sense, and it uses the evidence existing in many a persuasive way. No troubles there.

But my own hunch in the case is that it was one of Jackīs, and thus I think that it must be recognized that there is ample opportunity for such an interpretation too. That is why I point out that though you have a reasonably functioning fishing net, it is a net with many and big holes in it, through which both Kelly, on the night, and your theory could well escape.

The best, Michael, as always!
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Get rid of them quick unless the trick comes with a supply of alcohol.

For some, a quart pail of beer--even if it was full--wouldn't last for more than 2 or 3 verses.

[jason_c]

Hi, Fisherman.

I agree with your last two assertions here. Blotchy seems like a trick, and service quickly and send away seems like how it should work. BUT in this case it doesn't. No matter how you look at the singing, it does occur for the first 15 minutes of Blotchy and MJK's "encounter." Casebook even said Kelly is singing the same song at 11:45 and 12:00. THIS is NOT how it should work. Get rid of 'em quick!

So I just ask, "Why not?" I'm not trying to prove Blotch is JTR; all I'm saying is the song--and perhaps the beer--show as your own criteria suggest, that this is not a typical trick. This works differently. To me it shows a comfort level. I don't sing about dead mothers to any but my closest friends--and even then I only go through the song once. Sober or not.

So yeah, I think MJK and Blotch knew each other, I think he stayed around for a while, I don't think he was a trick. But I get less sure of each assertion. So if one wants to see him as a stranger who was tricked and dismissed, I'm not going to the wall to fight--as long as we do agree it's enough singing to warrant some kind of explanation besides drunk.

Get rid of them quick unless the trick comes with a supply of alcohol.

Morning Sam, Fisherman, all,

On the issue of the Victorian interpretation of "oh-murder" Sam, don't we have witnesses that state "oh-murder" was heard often in the East End and rarely if ever meant what its literal translation intended, and I don't recall if ever it was associated with an actual attack of some kind by the witnesses. In the case of the two women that heard it in Millers Court, did either take it seriously enough to actually go out and see what was the matter?

And on the murder of Mary Kelly being decidedly personal, being murdered in her own bed in her underwear in her own room seems pretty personal, from her perspective at least.

Hi Fisherman, I dont have a problem with you or anyone thinking I'm staying too focussed on the accepted evidence submitted. Because you're right....I have only suggested that one trip out of the courtyard happened without witnesses, Blotchy leaving, as we know that he did,... I haven't suggested that Mary brings clients to her room when there is no evidence she ever had, and I'm not suggesting that from what we do know of Mary Kelly we can then conclude she would go out in the rain whoring, when she already was fed, drunk and had a bed for the night.

I am suggesting the last man seen with her is Blotchy Man, as the records for the suspect description show was the police opinion by Nov 16th.

I do think its kind of ironic that I should be arguing for the use of existing accredited statements, and then being accused of being "on crack" for doing so. Like a position that makes assumptions on what all prostitutes would do, makes assumptions that Mary takes in clients to her room, and includes a witness discredited, is a more sensible take on the night. It would seem the first 2 points lack evidence to support them, and the last was dismissed by officials 120 years ago.

Surely thats not escaped those arguing against Mary having stayed in.

Best regards all.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"Being grounded and pragmatic are good things studying these cases, wearing blinders is not."

Couldnīt have agreed more, Michael. But as for who is wearing the blinders here, I do not feel that I have enough information and evidence to pass that verdict as yet...

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Just a faintish cry of "oh-murder", the Victorian equivalent of "Oh-damn".

Intrigued to know if there are any verifiable sources for that assertion, Mike.

Oh...and one more, since the setting of her murder is decidedly personal, the ONLY Canonical so found, it would naturally allow for a personal relationship between killer and victim to have enabled it. No other Canonical has that possibility built into the evenings recorded events.

True, except inasmuch as to assert "is decidedly personal" is, as statements go, a tad on the loaded side. "May be construed as personal" is a safer bet - it was a rented room, after all, and it is a fact that prostitutes used their rented rooms to service clients.

So... why did Kelly trust her killer?

Why,... because he was someone well enough known by Mary Kelly to possibly have arrived at her doorstep after 3am, maybe even 3:45am, and not be loudly turned away. Because he was allowed to see her in her room undressed,.... only the Joe's have had that opportunity before, that we know of.

Why, because it would appear by her position at the commencement of the attack as put forward by the medical officials, which is in bed, on the right side of the bed, perhaps facing the wall...as if she was intending to sleep with her back to someone.

The most compelling "Why" is the first though, because according to the submitted and accepted evidence, her killer entered without any appreciable noise or resistance from Mary Kelly. She could not have been silenced that quickly by a killer breaking in, or being let in...she had time either way to move, scream or struggle. No one hears anything like that. Just a faintish cry of "oh-murder", the Victorian equivalent of "Oh-damn".

Oh...and one more, since the setting of her murder is decidedly personal, the ONLY Canonical so found, it would naturally allow for a personal relationship between killer and victim to have enabled it. No other Canonical has that possibility built into the evenings recorded events.

Best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

So... why did Kelly trust her killer?

[paul emmett]

Hi, Michael. I've been saying all along, not very much like standard whore and client, and I've known a maudlin drunk or two. But I still say it's too much singing, and the "spreeish" came from GH's newspaper comments. Now what do you think of it ?

Have a good evening.

Michael, you just made me realize something else that bothers me about the singing. Most people ARE going to say that she was JUST drunk and happy. But, in fact, Cox only said half of it--just drunk. "She was very drunk and could scarcely answer me," says Cox. Nothin' about happy. And Kelly's song was far from happy. So I wonder about drunk and happy almost as much as I wonder about this woman, who could scarcely answer, singing for. . . . . . .however long people want to say.

Have a good evening.

Hi Paul,

At least one press account of interviews with Ms Cox did mention Mary being happy...."spreeish"?. And since she was singing, I don't think its a far fetched notion.

Perhaps you should remember that many songs of the period were about loss, loss of love, loss of life, that doesn't make them sad songs. I know my English born 98 year old grandmother a few years ago singing songs from the first and second World Wars, with lots of sadness in them, and she smiled while singing them.... because of their memories for her. Who she was back then, what it felt like to be young....ish.

Maybe Mary, in a sweet drunken moment, was just thinking of her home, and her Ma.

And lets not forget that Mary eats that night, after midnight. If she didnt go back out as per the evidence on file, she and Blotchy could be sharing some Fish and Chips or Fish Stew with potatoes during her singing breaks. Not very much like standard "whore and client", is it?

My best regards Paul.

[paul emmett]

You can add to the song that Mary was in a very good mood according to Cox when she arrives home. Drunk but happy,...now surely that couldn't be enough to start someone singing?

Michael, you just made me realize something else that bothers me about the singing. Most people ARE going to say that she was JUST drunk and happy. But, in fact, Cox only said half of it--just drunk. "She was very drunk and could scarcely answer me," says Cox. Nothin' about happy. And Kelly's song was far from happy. So I wonder about drunk and happy almost as much as I wonder about this woman, who could scarcely answer, singing for. . . . . . .however long people want to say.

Have a good evening.

You can add to the song that Mary was in a very good mood according to Cox when she arrives home. Drunk but happy,...now surely that couldn't be enough to start someone singing?

Fisherman, you're right when you say we don't know if she went out after midnight,...I mean how could we know for sure it happened, when there is no evidence of it. We know she came home and went in...we know Blotchy went in...we know Blotchy leaves, because he is not there when the door is opened. Thats it. In case anyone hasn't noticed, the absence of any evidence is hardly grounds for making the assumption she leaves regardless.

Seems to me that a very likely story is contained within the accepted evidence of the evening, and that doesn't include a night trip out. But sadly for the people who feel the Ripper killed Mary, and only acquired his victims while they were on the streets prostituting.

Perhaps instead of changing the Rippers MO for any kill that doesnt match his priors, has anyone considered that maybe more than just Jack the Ripper killed women in 1888? We do have unattributed victims before and after the canonicals...did they just stop while The Ripper worked, out of a professional courtesy?

Oh,.....only Jack subdues his street prostitutes quietly, gets them on the ground and cuts their throats, then lifts their skirts and mutilates their abdomens. Someone should have reminded them the next summer when they found a woman killed just like that. Or is that a copycat?

Perhaps working indoors didn't have the same appeal of the streets, and perhaps after de-engineering a woman indoors, he returns to doing far less, back on the streets. I guess Mary was a test drive...see if he liked it?

Being grounded and pragmatic are good things studying these cases, wearing blinders is not.

Cheers all.

Best regards.

[paul emmett]

If Kelly really had spent most of her life in Wales, that was a mere warm-up, believe me

Yeah, but warm-up for what?