Her eyes?

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Wickerman]

Let's try this one out...

I doubt it will get you anywhere...

Did Hutchinson also know Lechmere -- and well enough to want to protect him? Lechmere and Maywood had children attending the same school for a time. Maywood was Kelly's pimp around then. Lechmere may actually have known Kelly, therefore. Lechmere had a daughter named Mary Jane (b.1875). Mary Jane Kelly probably wasn't really called Mary Jane, but took the names from somewhere. Kelly was scared by the Ripper murders (and ?therefore? behind with her rent), but would likely have trusted Lechmere if she'd known him from before and taken his eldest daughter's name.

If....if...if...if...

Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan Man is absolutely ludicrous --

Well, that all depends on how much you know about the area & the times.
When Joseph Isaacs was arrested in December 1888 even the journalist who saw him wrote that he definitely resembled the suspect in the Astrachan coat. Isaacs, a middle-aged Jew, was known to dress above his station, and to pose as someone of importance. He was even known to wear a false gold watch chain, and he lived in Paternoster Row, just off Dorset st.

Sgt. Badham & Insp. Abberline, who both interviewed Hutchinson were quite satisfied with what he told them, but they knew the area & the type of people who frequented the East End, unlike yourself.
So, who's opinion do you think has any value here?

.....but would have served very well as a way of putting the police off Lechmere's scent had he been one of the people seen. Hypothesis: Lechmere had connections and pulled in a favour...

M.

You're on the wrong thread.

[caz]

Are you the pot to my kettle? You seem to think all the women were actively prostituting themselves including Mary.....just that nasty speed bump about any evidence for that whatsoever thats holding you back? You made so many decisions without using the known evidence but you shouldnt accuse others of the same without some evidence.

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.

Have you got it now?? I don't know whether Kelly was actively prostituting herself that night, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

You seem to think she wasn't, and had no need to do so, even though the rent man was hoping to collect in the morning. That's fine as it's just your opinion, but others have a perfect right to disagree. You don't have to be so disagreeable about it.

[caz]

Well Caz, what has your vivid imagination made of singing behind closed doors for over an hour....did she sing while servicing? Or was that her weekend special....sex and song while inebriated?

Well you seem to know more than me about what prostitutes don't do to cadge their next drink, so I will have to bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.

Listen up, everyone. Prostitutes don't sing.

[Michael W Richards]

Well, that all depends on how much you know about the area & the times.
When Joseph Isaacs was arrested in December 1888 even the journalist who saw him wrote that he definitely resembled the suspect in the Astrachan coat. Isaacs, a middle-aged Jew, was known to dress above his station, and to pose as someone of importance. He was even known to wear a false gold watch chain, and he lived in Paternoster Row, just off Dorset st.

I think Wick that there may be more to Issacs but I have been unable to find a cross reference. Not only was what you wrote above accurate, but he had just moved to the room in Little Paternosters Row and left, leaving belongings behind, in the middle of the night Mary is murdered. I think the name Issacs may have relevance to the club on Berner St, we know that Mary was seeing someone named Joe at the same time she was with Barnett..most assume Flemming...and interestingly as you note he does fit Astrakans details.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Have you got it now?? I don't know whether Kelly was actively prostituting herself that night, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Since there is no evidence at all that Mary ever brought a client into that court, and that the one man other than Barnett that she does bring in is treated to singing for over and hour, it seems the evidence can help you determine whether or not.

You seem to think she wasn't, and had no need to do so, even though the rent man was hoping to collect in the morning. That's fine as it's just your opinion, but others have a perfect right to disagree. You don't have to be so disagreeable about it.

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. Its a simple problem, I use the basic evidence parameters and find what stories best fit with it. I suppose people get pissed when I seem so sure about some things, but quite frankly I have vetted many storylines for some of these murders and I am pretty sure about some of my "guesses". Youll note that the only Suspect name Ive ever suggested in connection with any of these murders could not have killed all 5 women and yet Ive never strongly suggested candidates for the others. Because Im not looking for the Name, or the Names. I seek the real story and it will lead to the Name. We differ that way.

[caz]

"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.

[Mark J D]

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.

[caz]

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?

[Meet Ze Monster]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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?

[caz]

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?

[caz]

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.

[caz]

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

[MrBarnett]

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?