Her eyes?

[MrBarnett]

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.

This is a woman who was familiar with entertaining men in rooms in/around the Ratcliffe Highway. It’s not an ‘accusation’, it’s a reasonable assumption.

I’m sure many are aware of Mary’s background in the East End.

It’s onus, btw, not owness.

[Michael W Richards]

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

Oh, I dont know, cause its a probable component of his MO maybe ? The problem is likely that youre question who approaches whom...which is not the point at all. The point is these 2 women were out on the streets in the middle of the night hoping to get paying clients. That is what the killer sought. Women alone seeeking strangers might well be a key to the killer.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

No, suggesting she did and providing not one shred of evidence for the supposition is bad logic. You can imagine any scenario you like, but anything worth considering has to be based on actual facts. Not just a sense of awe and wonder.

[Michael W Richards]

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

Looky there...youre now guessing he was unappealing physically and had to tempt them with generous offers. He may well have been quite handsome and the women might have blushed at the opportunity to sex up such a fine fellow. So...the polar opposite could also be true. Thing is....since we dont know who killed one woman let alone the FIVE, maybe guessing about how he looked at how he got to the women is best addressed when evidence accusing anyone is discovered.

Youre a classic cart before the horse, running around with a 5 victim count hook in your mouth tyrying to find that unappealing man who held the fishing rod. Maybe try and find just one killer for any one of the murders, then you can dream up some of your apeman scenarios to fill in the gaps.

[caz]

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, you tried to suggest that to argue with you over which victims you attribute to a different killer, was tantamount to arguing with what Dr Phillips said about "no meaningless cuts". I'm not the only one to gain that impression, because at least one other poster asked you if Phillips reached the same conclusion you have from his words, regarding how many different killers were likely responsible for the C5.

If Dr Phillips, regardless of what he said about Chapman's murder, believed the same man went on to kill more of the C5, then you would be alone with your opinion that he didn't, and by implication that you know better than Phillips. This is why it would be useful for you, as much as anyone, to know if Phillips did or didn't share your opinion, based on what he saw in Chapman's case. What is the point of using his words to support your theories about the later murders, if he believed they were by the same hand?

Why would you expect the man who killed Nichols and Chapman to get more competent if he went on killing? I thought your suspect's mind was already going and that he was soon afterwards confined to an asylum. If that doesn't suggest a rapid deterioration in mind and body, I don't know what would. So if your man didn't do it, some other man did. Why would he have been any less susceptible to mental deterioration after Hanbury Street? Why wouldn't you expect to see him get less competent as he went on killing, given that your man's ability to function evidently went through the floor? If he had managed to stay away from the men in white coats for another couple of months, do you suppose he'd have become more competent and compos mentis, if he'd had Mary Kelly all to himself in room 13?

[caz]

Looky there...youre now guessing he was unappealing physically and had to tempt them with generous offers. He may well have been quite handsome and the women might have blushed at the opportunity to sex up such a fine fellow. So...the polar opposite could also be true. Thing is....since we dont know who killed one woman let alone the FIVE, maybe guessing about how he looked at how he got to the women is best addressed when evidence accusing anyone is discovered.

Youre a classic cart before the horse, running around with a 5 victim count hook in your mouth tyrying to find that unappealing man who held the fishing rod. Maybe try and find just one killer for any one of the murders, then you can dream up some of your apeman scenarios to fill in the gaps.

No, Michael, please learn to read, and not to guess. I wasn't 'guessing' the killer was anything; I wondered 'if there was perhaps something...' about him. Is that a sin now? I have suggested in the past that he could have come across as a good 'catch': a real big spender, good looking, so refined, say wouldn't they like to know what's going on in his mind... sorry, got a bit carried away there.

But why oh why is it fine for you to speculate to your heart's content, to fill the considerable gaps in our collective knowledge, but not for anyone else to make even the most innocent suggestions? For example, if there's no evidence that Kelly had any paying customers after Barnett left, there's certainly no evidence that she didn't, or that she was happily surviving on fresh air.