why did kelly trust her killer

[jason_c]

I think the more appropriate question is why did any of the murder victims trust their killer? I also think the answer is simple - they were prostitutes in need of money which put them into dangerous circumstances. Unless Jack was a raving lunatic with rolling red eyes and drool running down his face while he screamed "I'm gonna kill you whore", they pretty much had no choice but to go off with him. Jack could have been any customer.

Why should Mary have been any different?

c.d.

Agreed.

I dont see why its so difficult for some to believe Kelly trusted(and brought home) a stranger.

Only last year we had 5? prostitutes murdered in Ipswich within a matter of weeks. There was no lack of girls willing to work the streets during this time.

[Ben]

No, I honestly don't think so, Gareth; it's a plausible alternative, but I wouldn't say it's more probable. There's nothing hugely organised about noticing a prostitute going indoors, or remembering that a prostitute lived at such and such a place, having used her services on occasions.

That said, I'd personally place JTR in the "organized" end of the "mixed" category.

[Ben]

Just a general observation;

I have slight problem with the argument that the intruder/visitor scenario is too "different". If people are prepared to accept that the ripper killed indoors on this occasion (i.e. a "different" location), they should logically be prepared to accept that his approach to the crime might have been susceptible to change too. Arguing that the location can change but the approach must always remain constant makes no more sense than vice versa.

[celee]

Just a general observation;

I have slight problem with the argument that the intruder/visitor scenario is too "different". If people are prepared to accept that the ripper killed indoors on this occasion (i.e. a "different" location), they should logically be prepared to accept that his approach to the crime might have been susceptible to change too. Arguing that the location can change but the approach must always remain constant makes no more sense than vice versa.

Hey Ben,

I agree. I think Jack killed Kelly indoors because she brought him there. It is as simple as that. I do not feel he changed his method. I feel he aproached Mary like all the others. I think it was Henry Moore who said " What makes it easy for him,Jack, is they take him to the place they know interuption is least likely" Jack went with the ladies to a spot of their choice.

Ted Bundy did change his method when he broke into a serority house an attacked four women.

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

That pretty much illustrates what I'm getting at, Brad.

The same people arguing "Why the change?" in response to the suggestion that the killer was an intruder never seem to ask the same question about an obvious "change" in venue-type. To me, it logically follows that if he can change the venue, he can alter his approach too, and the Bundy example certainly illustrates this.

Cheers,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
What is wrong with the following scenerio?
Mary Kelly is not dead at daybreak, she infact leaves her room and is seen by Maurice Lewis, and Caroline Maxwell, also whilst in Dorset street by a unknown woman who has been called a Mrs Goode.
Whilst in Dorset street she is observed by the Whitechapel killer, who is wearing Plaid and of market porter appearance.
About 845am she starts a conversation with this man, she senses he may be intrested in a trick, and mentions that she has her own room nearby.
The man displays intrest, but says where is your room I will come to it after I have seen to a spot of business?
Kelly replies.
Just up the road dowm the passage called 'Millers court' second door on the right, dont be long I shall be waiting...
She then returns to her room , to her already lit fire, and proceeds to undress, she is completely at ease, she is not paranoid about being in her room during the active hours of daylight, neither is she concerned for her safety.
The man[ her killer] is also rubbing his hands in delight , for not only has he have instructions to his victims abode, but can make his own way there without running the risk of being seen escorting kelly back there.
Note .
The bedroll has already been rolled up , as if kelly had already arisen, her boots were near the fireplace which shows evidence that a fire was in progress, and there is some evidence showing that kelly was in the final stages of undress when she was attacked.[ her stocking],
The above possible happening is purely my own opinion, the only major drawback is the medical opinions of 1888, and do we trust them as gospel?.
I certainly do not, otherwise I would not persist along these lines.
Best Regards,
Richard.

[celee]

Hi Richard,

One problem with your scenario is Time. The Ripper would have needed much more time then you suggest. According to your idea, the Rippper would only have an hour and a halve to go to Kelly's room attack her, mutilate her and make good his escape.

The Doctors may not have been always right about time of death but I think they could tell if a body had only been dead for an hour rather then eight hours ago.

If so many people saw Kelly when she left her room and moved about, I bet someone would have seen Jack enter or leave Kelly's room at that time of day.

Your friend, Brad

[richardnunweek]

Hi Brad,
The time issue I dont feel is important, if one takes the mess inflicted on Eddowes in just a few minutes, then if one times that 20 fold then her killer could have been way gone by 1020am, proberly sooner.
With reference to the Rigor mortis issue.
Modern day assessment indicates that time of death cannot be proven in this case.
Summing up, I do not feel a time issue rules a morning murder out. infact at the time of the murder of MJK, residents in that area believed exactly like myself, that being she was killed during daylight hours, if that was a result of Maurice Lewis's alleged sighting, or Maxwells famous evidence I cannot say.
Still persistant in my approach Brad.
Regards Richard.

[celee]

Yep you sure are my friend,

[Fisherman]

Hi Paul!

You speak of "the consistency of the singing", but I am afraid that this is no more than speculation on you part. We do not have any evidence telling us whether it was a full an hour-and-a-quarter performance or not. We cannot state with any certainty that Picket was fed up as she had been hearing three quarters of songs. Maybe she had heard a quarter of it, between 11.45 and midnight, then happily noticed that Kelly stopped singing - "Now, THAT is a relief!!!" - only to hear her starting again at 12.30. That could have been the very thing that pushed Picket over the edge.

Trying to establish that Kelly sang for all that time, that it meant that she was singing for Blotchy, that it in it´s turn proves that he was around all that time (at least), that it shows that Kelly did not go out in search of punters during it, is all very understandable. But I think that a scenario where a prostitute in a drunken mood services a customer and sends him on his way a few minutes later, is something that tallies very well with how street prostitution works and has always worked. And bringing a bloke home in the middle of the night, to your private premises, has more than a whisper of turning tricks to it, wouldn´t you say?

The very best, Paul!
Fisherman

[paul emmett]

Trying to establish that Kelly sang for all that time, that it meant that she was singing for Blotchy, that it in it´s turn proves that he was around all that time (at least), that it shows that Kelly did not go out in search of punters during it, is all very understandable. But I think that a scenario where a prostitute in a drunken mood services a customer and sends him on his way a few minutes later, is something that tallies very well with how street prostitution works and has always worked. And bringing a bloke home in the middle of the night, to your private premises, has more than a whisper of turning tricks to it, wouldn´t you say?

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.

We are assured of 30 minutes singing and then there's Picket who at least suggests what is transpiring in the gap between the times we know Kelly was singing. And then there's the fact that we don't know when it stops. All we know from Cox is that at 1:00 MJK was "still singing."

So all I say is, "What's with that?"

Have a good day.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

It seems no-one has ever heard of a man walking a woman home. But I can assure you that for almost as long as there have been men and women, there have been "walks home". I think its prudent to see these women as humans, not just faceless street whores, blindly following some "street whore rules" that everyone seems so familiar with.

Mary has lived alone for 8 days. Mary likes the company of men in her private life. Mary fears murderers of street whores. Mary had no money to get bombed on that night, nor is there evidence she performed any "tricks" to get some. Blotchy Man is the only man outside of her two lovers that we know was ever in her room, at any time. And we know by Mary Ann Cox witness statement that she started to sing when arriving before midnight, and did so, off and on, until after 1am. When the singing is recorded as stopping for the night, Marys room is recorded as dark and quiet by Elizabeth Prater. That status never varies when subsequent passes happen off and on until 3am, and Mary Ann Cox passed the room each pass in and out. Sarah Lewis walked by the door.

I think the evidence speaks for itself. Mary was probably in the room alone or with Blotchy in the dark before 1:30, or Blotchy left between the pass out just after 1am by Mary Ann, and the climb of the stairs by Prater near 1:30am.

That means there was no pick-up on a street corner, there was no escorting a killer to her room...unless it was Blotchy Man. That leaves us with a man she sang to as one suspect...a friend, a man loitering outside the court, later claimed as George Hutchinson's vigil of concern for a friend...as another,..or her killer comes into the court and accesses her room by himself,...and we have no record of any resistance to that by Mary, unless it was the faintish "oh-murder" of around 3:45 am. Which was followed by silence...either indicating a stranger kept Mary quiet until the court would have dozed off again, or she had accepted his presence without fear. Again, most likely a known man or friend.

Its time to stop inventing unseen trips, or asserting Mary may have picked up her killer and brought him to her room, because other than Blotchy Man there are no other men in that court brought there by Mary on record that night. And before someone says it, George Hutchinsons suspect was in fact discarded that same week...its a fact, not conjecture. You might think he should then be a suspect, I do, but it doesnt appear that was their take. However, the last man seen with Mary Kelly historically supported to this day by contemporary Police backing, is Blotchy Man. A man she sings to.

My best regards all.

[The Good Michael]

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.

We are assured of 30 minutes singing and then there's Picket who at least suggests what is transpiring in the gap between the times we know Kelly was singing. And then there's the fact that we don't know when it stops. All we know from Cox is that at 1:00 MJK was "still singing."

So all I say is, "What's with that?"

Have a good day.

Hold on! We are not assured of 30 minutes of straight singing. There are gaps of time between when Kelly was heard. About 5 years ago, I was in Lewis in the Outer Hebrides. I was staying at a rugby player's caravan park in a rented room with partitioned walls. There was a a woman, drunk, but coherent, with a man, in another room. I spoke to them for a few minutes and the man went off somewhere leaving the woman alone for a few hours. Presumably he went to look for alcohol on an island where it is scarce (presbyters and all that). Anyway, the woman began singing 'all you need is love' in a good voice. After about 10 renditions she stopped. I began to doze off and then she started up again. This continued from 12 until 2:00. She would sing for 10-15 minutes and take a 15 minute break and then start up again. Finally, the man/boyfriend came back. I told him that she needed to shut up. He agreed. About 3:30, she started up again. The same song over and over. She was in a lousy little room, alone, in the middle of nowhere, with a strange man in the room next to her (me), and she was comfortable enough to sing a stupid Beatles song over and over.

Kelly was comfortable because she was in her own room, and not because she knew Blotchy (though it's possible she did). For all we know, she sang the song while she was horizontal or bent over the bed, collected her money, kicked Blotchy out, and started singing again.

Cheers,

Mike

[paul emmett]

Hold on! We are not assured of 30 minutes of straight singing. There are gaps of time between when Kelly was heard. About 5 years ago, I was in Lewis in the Outer Hebrides. I was staying at a rugby player's caravan park in a rented room with partitioned walls. There was a a woman, drunk, but coherent, with a man, in another room. I spoke to them for a few minutes and the man went off somewhere leaving the woman alone for a few hours. Presumably he went to look for alcohol on an island where it is scarce (presbyters and all that). Anyway, the woman began singing 'all you need is love' in a good voice. After about 10 renditions she stopped. I began to doze off and then she started up again. This continued from 12 until 2:00. She would sing for 10-15 minutes and take a 15 minute break and then start up again. Finally, the man/boyfriend came back. I told him that she needed to shut up. He agreed. About 3:30, she started up again. The same song over and over. She was in a lousy little room, alone, in the middle of nowhere, with a strange man in the room next to her (me), and she was comfortable enough to sing a stupid Beatles song over and over.

"All You need Is Love"? I would say that instead of normalizing MJK, your most interesting story shows that the woman's song says something that needed to be "said" about the couple's relationship--or lack thereof.


And for the record, I never said 30 minutes of STRAIGHT singing. Cox hears it at 11:45 and says, Kelly was STILL singing at 12:00; she hears it at 12:45 and says she was STILL singing when Cox goes back out--which I would say was the same 15 minutes to warm her hands. But it could be longer.

[Fisherman]

Paul writes:
"And for the record, I never said 30 minutes of STRAIGHT singing. Cox hears it at 11:45 and says, Kelly was STILL singing at 12:00; she hears it at 12:45 and says she was STILL singing when Cox goes back out--which I would say was the same 15 minutes to warm her hands. But it could be longer."

Well, Paul, straight singing secures more customers, so she would have resorted to that type
A term here that needs to be scrutinized is Cox`s "still" singing. It implies that there was a steady flow of Kellys repertoire from her room between 11.45 and 01.00, and the fact of the matter is that we do not know that this occurred.
Blotchy could have been kicked out at 11.55.
He could have been sent off at 12.10. Or 12.20, 12 37, 12.51 or 12.52, for that matter.
Of course Michael could be right; he could have been escorting Kelly home like a victorian gentleman. There is no disproving it. But I do not think that suggesting business along a very traditional line is stretching things too far, given the fact that we had an at the very least tipsy prostitute in arrears, and a man with a pale of beer accompanying her into her room in the middle of the night.

But Michael, when you write "Its time to stop inventing unseen trips", I think you are being a bit harsh on the ones who press a scenario of a nights prostitution. In fact, we have no evidence that firmly establishes that she stayed in, just as we have no evidence that she went out. And that renders your version of her staying in all night just as much of an invention as the suggestion that she may have gone out. Like Cox. Like Prater. Like prostitutes do, more often than not.

The best, all!
Fisherman