Mary Jane and Blotchy

[Chava]

If Kelly breaks free & screams he's done? Maybe, maybe not. A cry of sorts was heard. The result; apathy by all. I think a lot of the killers risk taking with Kelly can be explained by her drunkenness. I can't guarantee Kelly was 'relaxed' or drowsy when attacked. I have known drunks ready to fight at the drop of a hat. I have also known drunks to fall asleep mid sentence. What was Kelly's precise condition of inebriation when attacked? Answers on a postcard, please.

We know she was pretty drunk at midnight. If she didn't go out again she'd have sobered up. If she did she could have gotten even drunker. Or not. Fewer punters around to buy her a drink by 2.00 am,
However to your other point about the scream. I agree, a scream wouldn't necessarily get noticed. But a scream of 'The Ripper' might. In any case, Our Friend doesn't want any screaming at all. He prefers to work very quietly. That having been said, screaming would have been the least of his problems if Mary had woken up. She was much taller than his other victims--5'6 or 5'7 which was very tall by the standards of the day. And she was well-nourished & strong. There are stories of fights in the vicinity of the 10 Bells. Mary Jane was no shrinking violet plucked from her mother's grave.

But she didn't scream or fight. Because she was in bed. And very likely asleep when she was attacked.

[Wickerman]

But it doesnt rule out the possibility that the real intention of Hutch's statement was to set suspicion on Issacs. George wouldnt have known Issacs was in custody.

Yes, framing Isaacs was one of the thoughts that came to mind, in which case they must have known each other, but then we're going down a rabbit hole for which there is "no legitimate evidence", and I know how you prefer to stay away from theories that contain "no legitimate evidence".

[Michael W Richards]

Those points do fit Joseph Isaacs, he was known to dress up 'above his station', he was a 'middle-aged Jew', he did live in the area (just off Dorset St.), he was known to have worn a gold watch chain, but missing the actual watch. It was reported that when the police finally laid their hands on him they thought they had collard Jack the Ripper. Sadly though, Joseph Isaacs had spent that Thursday night in a jail in Barnet. So it was not possible that he was the man described by Hutchinson.

But it doesnt rule out the possibility that the real intention of Hutch's statement was to set suspicion on Issacs. George wouldnt have known Issacs was in custody.

[jason_c]

She's definitely undressed & did so voluntarily. Her clothes were neatly folded. Her killer could have been someone she knew who was not a punter. But whoever it was, he was confident that she was asleep or relaxed enough not to see his intent until it was too late. In my opinion she undresses for bed with someone already there. Only because it would be difficult to creep in on her via the window and the latch without making enough noise to wake her. Let's not forget that loose hinge on her door that meant it swung back and banged on the chair by the bed. He'd have to know about that too. Kelly is a big girl & I believe she'd had fights before. The other victims were older, smaller & sicker. Easier to control. I just don't see the killer doing anything that could put his own wellbeing at risk. If Kelley breaks free & screams, he's done.

If Kelly breaks free & screams he's done? Maybe, maybe not. A cry of sorts was heard. The result; apathy by all. I think a lot of the killers risk taking with Kelly can be explained by her drunkenness. I can't guarantee Kelly was 'relaxed' or drowsy when attacked. I have known drunks ready to fight at the drop of a hat. I have also known drunks to fall asleep mid sentence. What was Kelly's precise condition of inebriation when attacked? Answers on a postcard, please.

[Wickerman]

... I don't think we can say with any degree of certainty it meant Kelly's final customer was staying the night, or that her killer was a returning punter.

Agreed, no cause to assume either was the case.

[Wickerman]

She's definitely undressed & did so voluntarily. Her clothes were neatly folded. Her killer could have been someone she knew who was not a punter. But whoever it was, he was confident that she was asleep or relaxed enough not to see his intent until it was too late. In my opinion she undresses for bed with someone already there. Only because it would be difficult to creep in on her via the window and the latch without making enough noise to wake her. Let's not forget that loose hinge on her door that meant it swung back and banged on the chair by the bed. He'd have to know about that too. Kelly is a big girl & I believe she'd had fights before. The other victims were older, smaller & sicker. Easier to control. I just don't see the killer doing anything that could put his own wellbeing at risk. If Kelley breaks free & screams, he's done.

The client would pay extra for a roll on a bed, as opposed to a knee-trembler in a dark ally.
I think you have it right on all points.

[Wickerman]

Alf Garnet for one.

Interesting observation, I figured the character was British "frew 'n frew".

[Chava]

You make a very good point about Kelly being dressed for bed. Though I don't think we can read too much into that. Kelly could have disrobed on account of this being her last customer. It may also have been a perk for a punter who was willing to pay a bit extra. I don't think we can say with any degree of certainty it meant Kelly's final customer was staying the night, or that her killer was a returning punter.

She's definitely undressed & did so voluntarily. Her clothes were neatly folded. Her killer could have been someone she knew who was not a punter. But whoever it was, he was confident that she was asleep or relaxed enough not to see his intent until it was too late. In my opinion she undresses for bed with someone already there. Only because it would be difficult to creep in on her via the window and the latch without making enough noise to wake her. Let's not forget that loose hinge on her door that meant it swung back and banged on the chair by the bed. He'd have to know about that too. Kelly is a big girl & I believe she'd had fights before. The other victims were older, smaller & sicker. Easier to control. I just don't see the killer doing anything that could put his own wellbeing at risk. If Kelley breaks free & screams, he's done.

[jason_c]

I'm posting this not to take a shot at you but to make a general observation. We don't know the nurderer's MO. There seems to be a general belief that he picked the women up & then attacked them as soon as it was safe to do so. But the fact is we have no evidence to suggest that. And even if he attacked quickly in one murder he may not have attacked in the same way in another. We have two witnesses to suggest that Kelly may have been out on the pull after Blotchy left. One of which I find difficult to believe. The other wasn't called to the inquest. Either or both could have seen Kelly.

However whether or not their statements were correct, Kelly was dressed for bed & lying in bed likely asleep when she was attacked. So she was comfortable enough to allow her last punter to stay the night with her. Or one of the punters she brought back to her room saw how the latch was used & noticed the broken window. Gained quiet entry into the room. And attacked her. Is this evidence for Blotchy? No. But Blotchy was definitely in the room with her. He might have crept out while she was singing. Gone on his merry way. Then returned. Or not.

You make a very good point about Kelly being dressed for bed. Though I don't think we can read too much into that. Kelly could have disrobed on account of this being her last customer. It may also have been a perk for a punter who was willing to pay a bit extra. I don't think we can say with any degree of certainty it meant Kelly's final customer was staying the night, or that her killer was a returning punter.

[Observer]

I doubt there would be too many Jewish dockworkers.

Alf Garnet for one.

[Chava]

Actually, I was trying to make a pun, but I think he met Kelly far too early in the evening/night to be a suspect in her murder.

I'm posting this not to take a shot at you but to make a general observation. We don't know the nurderer's MO. There seems to be a general belief that he picked the women up & then attacked them as soon as it was safe to do so. But the fact is we have no evidence to suggest that. And even if he attacked quickly in one murder he may not have attacked in the same way in another. We have two witnesses to suggest that Kelly may have been out on the pull after Blotchy left. One of which I find difficult to believe. The other wasn't called to the inquest. Either or both could have seen Kelly.

However whether or not their statements were correct, Kelly was dressed for bed & lying in bed likely asleep when she was attacked. So she was comfortable enough to allow her last punter to stay the night with her. Or one of the punters she brought back to her room saw how the latch was used & noticed the broken window. Gained quiet entry into the room. And attacked her. Is this evidence for Blotchy? No. But Blotchy was definitely in the room with her. He might have crept out while she was singing. Gone on his merry way. Then returned. Or not.

[Chava]

There were none.

I know.
I was being facetious. The Eastern European Jewish immigrant experience is one I head all about growing up.
Also I'm pretty sure that 'foreigner' meant 'Jew' in Whitechapel in 1888. The waves of immigration had led to an extraordinary explosion of different-looking & sounding people in the area in a fairly short time. The population went from 46000 in the mid 19th C to 250000 by 1920. And most of them went to the East End.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I doubt there would be too many Jewish dockworkers.

There were none.

[Chava]

While we should accept that no rule can be absolute, I would generally agree with you that the attire of a Jew, especially one reasonably well to do, is easily distinguishable from the attire of a Gentile in the same class. Whereas a Gentile or Jew of the labouring class may not be so easily distinguishable.

I'm sorry, what? Do you think well-to-do Jews wore caftans or something? At that point the richer Jews had been around for quite a while & were well-established. They dressed like any other people of their income group. The immigrants would wear very basic, cheap clothing. However they likely would always have had their heads covered. And they also likely did not 'labour' in the same way. I doubt there would be too many Jewish dockworkers. They were generally shut out from a lot of labouring occupations. So they worked for other Jews in the clothing factories. Or they worked in kosher slaughterhouses. Or they went out as old clothes men or pedlars on their own account.

[Wickerman]

Well, I don't want to go over old ground, but I did write long ago that Jews and Gentiles were distinguishable in East London at that time and was made to suffer for it, as if I had crossed some red line.

While we should accept that no rule can be absolute, I would generally agree with you that the attire of a Jew, especially one reasonably well to do, is easily distinguishable from the attire of a Gentile in the same class. Whereas a Gentile or Jew of the labouring class may not be so easily distinguishable.

Would you then agree with me that when Lawende described his suspect as a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor, he was indicating that he looked like a Gentile?

This is one of those instances I cited above, the man seen by Lawende appears to be of the lower labouring class, but I would still be more inclined to think of him as a Gentile.