Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Her eyes?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Meet Ze Monster View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    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?





    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

    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.
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    In response Caz;

    And you seem to think you can read my mind, but you'd be wrong, Michael, because I have never assumed 'all the women were actively prostituting themselves' and I've said so on numerous occasions, so it's beyond tedious to have to keep repeating myself.

    Youve broadstroked with comments about active prostitution across all these murders Caz, Im not going to go and saerch for even one because you know Im correct and frankly this isnt that big a deal to me.
    If it isn't that big a deal to you, why do you keep doing this? You don't know you are correct, because you are not correct, and you must know this assuming you can read plain English.

    I don't even agree with you that Nichols and Chapman were actively soliciting their killer. He may have seen the state each one was in, and assumed she would not refuse an offer of food, drink or money, and he may have assumed right. They did not necessarily make the approach. It was very late into the night in both cases and their resistance would have been low if they were tired, cold and hungry. He may simply have taken unfair advantage.

    Whether or not Stride was killed by the same man, I doubt she was actively soliciting her killer, whether this was a man who threw her to the ground as soon as he got close enough, or someone who arrived bearing tea and sympathy after grumpy man had walked off.

    Eddowes may have had no intention of selling herself either as she left the police station, but she could have been enticed by the empty promises of her killer. She wasn't in Mitre Square to preach abstinence. You have her down for much worse than a bit of light whoring. You have her down as a backward blackmailer: "I'll lure the unsuspecting bozo to a dark corner and then demand money with menaces. What could possibly go wrong?"

    Last point first, I apparently do have to be surly when making statements because very rarely is my point or position accurately reflected in rebuttals.
    If that's the case, then you should know how I feel, when you blatantly and repeatedly attribute to me a position I have not taken, as you are still doing with regard to the 'active prostitution' issue.

    Nobody has to be 'surly' about any of this, Michael. That's entirely up to you. But I'm not sure why you think you deserve more respect for your own position when you don't have the basic courtesy to reflect mine honestly.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Since Caz and others consistently misrepresent what Ive said, what my personal beliefs are, and what the evidence is actually saying. So...I do not believe any one man killed the five Canonicals, I believe one man killed 2 of them, perhaps 3. I believe that only 2 of the Five Canonicals stated that they were soliciting the nights they are killer respectively, thats the evidence anyway.....I believe that Marys killer did not break into her room but entered and was allowed to stay, it may well have been Blotchy...and I believe that anyone claiming to know differently is incorrect, has misread the evidence, and/or wants a different outcome than the facts themselves provide.

    Caz, like many others, is a busy little bee trying to find out who is the one man killed 5 working street women. Problem is that never happened, it wasnt one man, and its not indicated by the evidence anyway.
    We will never 'find out' who killed any of those women, Michael, so I don't know what you're drinking but I'll have a pint please.

    If there had been any hope of solving these crimes, I have to say you made your task infinitely harder, by giving yourself at least three unconnected killers to find, just to solve five of these murders.

    I agree with you that Kelly's killer probably didn't break into her room, but only because I can't see how that would have worked in practice. I think he gave her the impression that he would make it worth her while to invite him in, so she did. He may have given her money up front, which he took away with him. He may or may not have been Blotchy, but we'll never know.

    You seem to be on a mission to make me and others see the errors of our ways, but it's a fool's errand, Michael. Far more sensible to agree to disagree before you write something that puts you back on the naughty step. Wouldn't you agree?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I don't get this. Are you suggesting Kelly didn't invite Blotchy or anyone else into her room that night, and that Mrs Cox and Hutchinson were lying?

    All I said was that I thought Blotchy was as likely to have been a stranger to Kelly as a familiar face - perhaps more likely, given that nobody seemed to know who this man was, or had seen him around before. If Blotchy was innocent, that would make two men going to Kelly's room that night.

    I have no idea if this was the first occasion since Barnett left that Kelly 'entertained'. Perhaps it was; perhaps it wasn't. What difference would it make if we knew? What's your brilliant contention on the subject?
    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.

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Meet Ze Monster
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    How many days did Mary have alone in that room? She moved in with Barnett, and he moved out the end of Oct. Maria was there until Tuesday that last week...Mary was seen out on Wednesday, and went out drinking Thursday...and not one witness said that they ever saw Mary take any man other than Barnett into that room. Your contention, and a brilliant one, is that Mary began bringing men into her room that very night. How fortuitous for your reasoning.
    I don't get this. Are you suggesting Kelly didn't invite Blotchy or anyone else into her room that night, and that Mrs Cox and Hutchinson were lying?

    All I said was that I thought Blotchy was as likely to have been a stranger to Kelly as a familiar face - perhaps more likely, given that nobody seemed to know who this man was, or had seen him around before. If Blotchy was innocent, that would make two men going to Kelly's room that night.

    I have no idea if this was the first occasion since Barnett left that Kelly 'entertained'. Perhaps it was; perhaps it wasn't. What difference would it make if we knew? What's your brilliant contention on the subject?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark J D
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    I don't know whether Kelly was actively prostituting herself that night, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
    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.
    Last edited by Mark J D; 10-27-2021, 01:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    "No meaningless cuts". Have you been actually reading any posts or just ranting at other people coming up with answers that you apparently couldnt?

    Thats NO, meaning none.....meaningless, that means superfluous.....cuts, that means the marks he made with his knife.
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X