Her eyes?

[MrBarnett]

Could be, Mark.

I just don't know enough about Lechmere's character; his likes and dislikes; his social life when he wasn't working, sleeping, eating or making little Lechmeres; his religious beliefs or morals; his behaviour as a child; his criminal record if he had one.

I tell a lie. When I say I don't know enough, I actually know nothing at all about these things. Not much to hang a man with in my book.

But we can't all think alike.

Love,

Caz
X

Kelly’s previous experience of prostitution was in the Ratcliffe Highway, where the business model was to snag a sailor with his pockets full of gold and keep hold of him until the money ran out. In some cases that meant until he’d been knocked out and robbed, in other cases it involved living with him for days/weeks until he had to get back to his ship.

No singing allowed?

[caz]

There may not be any 'evidence' or witnesses who claimed Mary used her room for clients, but why does there have to be? She was drinking and behind in her rent and no longer supported by Barnett. And why deal on the streets if you don't have to. Poor woman probably thought she was safer off the streets during the Ripper murders.

Agreed, Meet Ze Monster. Or may I call you Meet?

I don't really understand this obsession with how - or if - Kelly used her naughty bits after Barnett moved out. It seems rather prurient, especially as it can't be proved either way, and proves nothing either way.

She'd have needed to eat at some point if she hadn't been murdered, so where was she hoping her next meal might come from? Would begging for sixpence be considered somehow less immoral than selling her personal assets for the same amount?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If youll note I last mentioned Mary before going out drinking Thursday night and prior to that point. No witness suggested they ever saw Mary enter the room with a man other than Barnett....before leaving to go drinking Thursday night.

Yes, but so what? I didn't get what point you were making then, and I still don't, so I didn't address it. What did you want me to say?

Barnett left Oct 30th. Maria moved out the Tuesday of that last week. Mary was seen out socializing Wednesday night. Thursday night she goes drinking apparently.

So, is it your contention that she had brought men into the room but Joe, Maria and no-one in the court ever notices. Or that she starts doing so with Blotchy. And is the singing just a value add to the experiences now readily available in room 13?

Blimey, this is hard work, Michael. I have no idea if she brought any man but Joe into the room before Blotchy, nor do I think it would tell us much if we did know. It sure seems important to you, but not to me. I have no 'contention' to offer. Sorry.

If you can enlighten me, with evidence if not from personal experience, as to what all the singing was about, and whether or not Blotchy's intentions were honourable, I'll be delighted, because I haven't the foggiest and have never claimed to know.

[c.d.]

I have never understood this idea that Mary could not have brought a man back to her room because there is no evidence of her ever having done so before. That may be true but if we follow that line of reasoning then we would have to conclude that Mary never could have been a prostitute in the first place because prior to her first time prostituting herself she had never done so before. Seems to be pretty bad logic to me.

c.d.

[caz]

We have evidence that Nichols and Chapman were both ‘unfortunates’ don’t we?

But on a night when both of them went out onto the streets looking for money, we doubt they approached anyone with an offer of sex?

Why would that be?

Hi Gary,

That's not really what I was suggesting. I can assure you I wasn't doing a Hallie R. I merely allowed for the possibility that by the time their killer encountered them, he may have been the one to make the first move, seeing that they were pretty much on their last legs and unlikely to make a song and dance. They could have been giving knee tremblers to regulars or strangers for most of the night as far as I know, but that doesn't prove they were still 'actively soliciting' when their killer came into view and did all the work to make him take the bait.

I just don't see why Michael Richards appears to be as obsessed with the 'did they/didn't they solicit their killer?' as Hallie R is. If they did, they did. We just don't know who made the approach on each occasion, or whether it could have been 50/50. I certainly have no fixed opinion on this, yet Michael keeps claiming otherwise.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Kelly’s previous experience of prostitution was in the Ratcliffe Highway, where the business model was to snag a sailor with his pockets full of gold and keep hold of him until the money ran out. In some cases that meant until he’d been knocked out and robbed, in other cases it involved living with him for days/weeks until he had to get back to his ship.

No singing allowed?

You'll need to ask Michael the Sailor Man about that one, Gary.

Perhaps just a brief sea shanty?

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,

That's not really what I was suggesting. I can assure you I wasn't doing a Hallie R. I merely allowed for the possibility that by the time their killer encountered them, he may have been the one to make the first move, seeing that they were pretty much on their last legs and unlikely to make a song and dance. They could have been giving knee tremblers to regulars or strangers for most of the night as far as I know, but that doesn't prove they were still 'actively soliciting' when their killer came into view and did all the work to make him take the bait.

I just don't see why Michael Richards appears to be as obsessed with the 'did they/didn't they solicit their killer?' as Hallie R is. If they did, they did. We just don't know who made the approach on each occasion, or whether it could have been 50/50. I certainly have no fixed opinion on this, yet Michael keeps claiming otherwise.

Love,

Caz
X

Phew! that’s a relief.

The idea that CB might morph into HR is the stuff of nightmares.

As you say, whether they or their killer made the first approach is unknowable - and insignificant. That they ended up where they did suggests to me that they didn’t reject his approach if he was the one who made it.

[caz]

I have never understood this idea that Mary could not have brought a man back to her room because there is no evidence of her ever having done so before. That may be true but if we follow that line of reasoning then we would have to conclude that Mary never could have been a prostitute in the first place because prior to her first time prostituting herself she had never done so before. Seems to be pretty bad logic to me.

c.d.

It's worse than that, c.d, because Michael Richards accepts that Kelly did have at least one man back to her room: Blotchy. Two or more if Blotchy left her alive. I don't see the significance if it was or wasn't the first occasion she had done so, or the first occasion she had the opportunity and took it.

How may men does it take to provide a fish supper and a pot of ale for a woman who is hungry and thirsty but lacks the means?

The killer managed to lie his way into that room somehow, whether she knew him and thought she could trust him, or whether he was a particularly generous stranger, who made her an offer she would soon not have the heart to refuse.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mark J D]

Not much to hang a man with in my book.

There we go again.

Astounding.

M.

[caz]

Phew! that’s a relief.

The idea that CB might morph into HR is the stuff of nightmares.

As you say, whether they or their killer made the first approach is unknowable - and insignificant. That they ended up where they did suggests to me that they didn’t reject his approach if he was the one who made it.

Agreed, Gary.

If the same man killed Stride, it may have been the case that she was more on her guard because of the recent murders, and less inclined to go off with strange men than she may have been in the past.

I wonder if there was perhaps something unwholesome physically, or unappealing in his manner, that would put have off a woman engaging with him socially, unless she was particularly desperate or he made an offer that was simply too generous to turn down.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There we go again.

Astounding.

M.

What?

Not sure I follow you, old sport.

Or is that where I went wrong? I can't toe everyone's party line. I'm not Colin Wilson.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, I read that, Michael. You keep using this mantra to conclude that Chapman's killer was not therefore the same man who cut the throats of the next three victims. This is why I asked you if this was also the verdict of Phillips himself, because if not, the conclusion you reached from his words is yours alone.

You can't keep appealing to a higher authority if he didn't reach the same conclusion you have from those same three words.

Not sure what your line of thinking is here...the physician said those words, Ive only quoted them, and I use that parameter when I assess later victims. So are you upset that Ive quoted the doctor who actually said it, mad that I accept that pronouncement, or mad that I measure future acts by that sort of skill set? If its the last I hardly think the man who killed Annie would somehow be less competent as he goes on killing, but I guess that just me. The person who killed Mary was never attributed by anyone with the level of skill and knowledge like Phillips had attributed to Annies killer.

[Michael W Richards]

Pardon my scenario, but to me, the reason she was singing on and on that night was that someone she knew and trusted from the old days (*cough*) had said he could offer her all the money she needed to pay off her rent arrears, and wasn't asking for sex in return.

M.

Buying a private concert was he?

[MrBarnett]

Buying a private concert was he?

Possibly - at least that’s how she may have perceived it to start with. Someone who was called Jo(hannes) perhaps, who had a blotchy faced associate with connections to Romford. A violent man who later stabbed and beat prostitutes?

[Michael W Richards]

There may not be any 'evidence' or witnesses who claimed Mary used her room for clients, but why does there have to be? She was drinking and behind in her rent and no longer supported by Barnett. And why deal on the streets if you don't have to. Poor woman probably thought she was safer off the streets during the Ripper murders.

Because if you wish to accuse someone of that kind of activity the owness is on you to provide evidence of it. Or do you fancy just accusing people of any old thing regardless of the lack of evidence? And the "poor woman" Im sure did think she was safer off the streets..that doesnt mean she found a new way to entertain clients. I wonder who is aware that Mary did this exact same thing before...drank, ran arrears, didnt work regularly,....the woman was obviously depressed with her life, she told her friend as much.