How Drunk Was Mary?

[barnflatwyngarde]

Folks, I have checked the threads and haven't been able to find any postings relating to this topic.
Apologies If I have missed it.

I have been bothered for years by one specific thing relating to Mary Jane Kelly’s murder.

According to Mrs Cox, she saw Kelly in the company of a man at approx’ 11.45pm on Thursday 8th November.

According to Mrs Cox, Kelly was “Very drunk and could scarcely answer me, but said good-night to me”.

Mrs Picket's evidence indicates that Kelly was still alive, and singing, at 12.30am

There is general agreement that the evening of the 8th and into the 9th November was drizzly at least, and possibly raining quite heavily on occasions.

Put simply, I am asking why on earth would Kelly wander back out in the early hours of a cold damp morning when she had clearly been very intoxicated shortly before?

I suppose we have all over indulged on occasions and have stumbled into bed the worse for wear, glad that we managed to make it back home to the safety of our beds. As soon as our heads hit the pillow we are fast asleep.
Why should Kelly be any different?

Hutchinson stated that he saw Kelly at 2.00am on the morning of Friday 9th November she was “spreeish”.

This does not square with someone who barely 2 hours before had been so drunk that she could hardly string a coherent sentence together.
Of all the witnesses who may have seen the murderer, Hutchinson clearly gave the most detailed (too detailed?) description.

It is clear that Abberline gave some credence to Hutchinson’s evidence, but the fact that Hutchinson quickly vanishes from the police investigation, surely clearly indicates that they were no longer giving much credence to his story.

I do not believe that the evidence given by Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy re the possibility of Kelly being alive in the early hours of Friday 9th November have any bearing on the murder of Mary Jane Kelly.

To sum up:
• Kelly had been drinking for a good part of the evening.
• By 11.45 she was very drunk and could hardly talk.
• Her client presumably had sex with her, possibly several times, and
possibly for at least part of their assignation, when Kelly was passed
out due to extreme intoxication.


I also think that her client took advantage of her extreme inebriation to murder her.

[Wickerman]

Put simply, I am asking why on earth would Kelly wander back out in the early hours of a cold damp morning when she had clearly been very intoxicated shortly before?

To be fair, although Cox followed Kelly down the passage, she doesn't say Kelly was staggering or so drunk she was unable to walk straight. What she does say is, "I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night".
Which is consistent with Hutchinson's "spreeish".

Might I offer a suggestion, if you really want to know why prostitutes go out in inclement weather, even after a few beers, why don't you ask a prostitute?

Who better to give you a true answer?

[barnflatwyngarde]

To be fair, although Cox followed Kelly down the passage, she doesn't say Kelly was staggering or so drunk she was unable to walk straight. What she does say is, "I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night".
Which is consistent with Hutchinson's "spreeish".

Might I offer a suggestion, if you really want to know why prostitutes go out in inclement weather, even after a few beers, why don't you ask a prostitute?

Who better to give you a true answer?

The point I was trying to make was that Mary was clearly very drunk in the early hours of November 9th and I have doubts whether she would have been able to go soliciting again.

In short, I think she would have fallen into a drunken stupor.

Bear in mind that Mary's companion was carrying a pail of beer when he entered Mary's house at 11.45.

So not only was she very drunk at 11.45, she was also going to consume more alcohol.

With regard to your helpful "suggestion" that I ask a prostitute why they feel compelled to go out soliciting in inclement weather, I had the pleasure of sitting on a working group looking at "Sexual Slavery and Exploitation in Glasgow". What I learned on this group re the exploitation of women shook me to my core.

So, with the greatest respect I think that I have a fairly good handle on the horrors of prostitution and how this vile trade degrades and demeans women.

[Michael W Richards]

The point I was trying to make was that Mary was clearly very drunk in the early hours of November 9th and I have doubts whether she would have been able to go soliciting again.

In short, I think she would have fallen into a drunken stupor.

Bear in mind that Mary's companion was carrying a pail of beer when he entered Mary's house at 11.45.

So not only was she very drunk at 11.45, she was also going to consume more alcohol.

With regard to your helpful "suggestion" that I ask a prostitute why they feel compelled to go out soliciting in inclement weather, I had the pleasure of sitting on a working group looking at "Sexual Slavery and Exploitation in Glasgow". What I learned on this group re the exploitation of women shook me to my core.

So, with the greatest respect I think that I have a fairly good handle on the horrors of prostitution and how this vile trade degrades and demeans women.

I believe you are deducing the situation accurately, so I wouldn't let anyone just brush off what is a very good premise, in my opinion. When you add to the facts you've mentioned that Mary had a history of running arrears even before she did so with McCarthy, you can safely assume that even when the chips were down so to speak Mary Kelly did not have a record of working the streets to even pay for her accomodations, let alone more booze...and since the places Mary could get booze were closed, there is ZERO impetus for someone like Mary to go out and solicit strangers in the rain.

There is only one account of Mary ever bringing a man other than Barnett to her room, and there is evidence that she sang until after 1am when she did, from the time she came home at 11:45pm,... so its pretty clear she didn't bring "clients" into her room either.

You will encounter many people here that assume Mary did go out to solicit and that Blotchy was a client despite the contradictory evidence, ...Ive been hearing those assumptions for years. The facts are of course that there is zero evidence for them, and that contrary evidence does exist....so don't worry. The real world does exist despite those that claim something that doesn't exist does.

Cheers

[SirJohnFalstaff]

There is nothing in the post mortem indicating heavy intoxication. Only allusion to partially digest food.

Not saying that she wasn't. But to say that she was and couldn't go out afterwards is playing one witness against another.
Which imply choosing from our part.

[Mabuse]

There is nothing in the post mortem indicating heavy intoxication.

I don't think there was a method to determine blood alcohol level via autopsy in 1888. I could be wrong, though.

In response to barnflatwyngarde, the problem we have is that in general witness reports are terrible in terms of their accuracy. It has been shown over and over again that people misreport what they've seen, human memory is terribly fallible, and all sorts of distortions of perception take place, even when you're trying to pay attention.

Hutchinson's report is very dubious, it is far too detailed, he waited a long time before making the report, and his motivations for his actions and indeed making the report are unclear.

Caroline Maxwell's account is also highly questionable.

In fact we just don't have a very good way to separate the errors, misperceptions and plain untruths from the accurate observations in this or any other witness statement about the murders, except where there are corroborating accounts from other witnesses or separate evidence.

If Mary Kelly was very drunk, I think you're correct that she would have passed out, and not gone out again.

Then again, if she was only slightly pissed, she might have gone out again if she was motivated enough, perhaps after a nap.

People had different sleeping patterns in that era, "segmented sleep". It was only with the full introduction of artificial lighting did the early morning wakeful period disappear. She might have woken up by habit and gone out, having slept off some of her intoxication.

My personal opinion is she wasn't blackout drunk, she was fairly intoxicated but not totally out of it. I'm not sure if we know how much of a drinker she was, if she was a heavy drinker, all bets are off. Alcoholism was rampant amongst the poor. She might have been a "regular soaker" and been able to deal with a lot of booze, routinely able to shake herself off and go out to earn her sixpence.

[markmorey5]

The point I was trying to make was that Mary was clearly very drunk in the early hours of November 9th and I have doubts whether she would have been able to go soliciting again.

In short, I think she would have fallen into a drunken stupor.

Bear in mind that Mary's companion was carrying a pail of beer when he entered Mary's house at 11.45.

So not only was she very drunk at 11.45, she was also going to consume more alcohol.

With regard to your helpful "suggestion" that I ask a prostitute why they feel compelled to go out soliciting in inclement weather, I had the pleasure of sitting on a working group looking at "Sexual Slavery and Exploitation in Glasgow". What I learned on this group re the exploitation of women shook me to my core.

So, with the greatest respect I think that I have a fairly good handle on the horrors of prostitution and how this vile trade degrades and demeans women.

There's a big difference between human trafficking and voluntary sex work. Where I live in Australia the sex industry has been legal for well over 30 years, and in a previous job I did some website design work for a number of escorts in our city. I knew them at a personal level and they did their work for the good money, the hours and the independence it gave them. They were lovely women and were not afflicted in any obvious way from their line of work.

Street walking or gutter crawling is entirely different to running a medium-priced escort service from your inner-city apartment, but in Australia with legal and regulated brothels, there's no reason why a prostitute can't put herself down for shifts in a safe environment. In the UK where brothels are illegal they exist anyway, and other prostitutes operate Internet-based escorting.

If brothels were legal in the UK then they could be inspected for trafficked women, and if illegal brothels sprang up to hold trafficked women as somtimes happens here, they can be closed down without forcing women voluntarily working in legal brothels onto the street to work in an unsafe envioronment. So legalising brothels makes it safer for women wanting to work in the industry, and it makes it harder to hide trafficked women. That has been the experience here.

[Wickerman]

The point I was trying to make was that Mary was clearly very drunk in the early hours of November 9th

You still cling to this "clearly very drunk" in spite of Cox admitting she could not tell until Kelly spoke.

Bear in mind that Mary's companion was carrying a pail of beer when he entered Mary's house at 11.45.

Because the pail was not found we cannot say whether he drunk it all himself, or shared it with her, or took it away with him half full. Maybe it was only half full to begin with.

With regard to your helpful "suggestion" that I ask a prostitute why they feel compelled to go out soliciting in inclement weather, I had the pleasure of sitting on a working group looking at "Sexual Slavery and Exploitation in Glasgow". What I learned on this group re the exploitation of women shook me to my core.

Which makes your question all the more hard to justify.

Therefore we can both admit to knowing & understanding what motivates these poor women to face the elements and nightly dangers on a frequent basis, drunk, spreeish, tipsy or whatever.

Only if she was too drunk to walk do we question her ability to go out again, and there is nothing to suggest she was so inebriated that night.
Not Cox, not Hutchinson, not the medical evidence, - nothing.

[Errata]

There is nothing in the post mortem indicating heavy intoxication. Only allusion to partially digest food.

Not saying that she wasn't. But to say that she was and couldn't go out afterwards is playing one witness against another.
Which imply choosing from our part.

Not necessarily.

Drunkenness is a complicated process, and it affects people differently. Now a majority of people with food in them can down quite a bit of alcohol before getting really intoxicated. The heavier or starchier the food, the longer it remains in the stomach, so it's not uncommon for more alcohol to make it in to the bloodstream than if the stomach were empty. You don't feel the effects as quickly with food, but you feel them longer. Fish and potatoes, likely fish and chips, that would make for one hell of a hangover, which means dehydration, which can mean a longer period of drunkenness.

And then it depends on whether she is a chronic alcoholic or a binge drinker. Chronic alcoholics have to drink every day or their brains don't function. And detox can be lethal, so it is incredibly important that they get that alcohol. They have crossed the line where their addiction has become necessary to stay alive, much less function. It is a state that is very difficult to maintain when poor. Not impossible by any means, but it requires not only prostitution, but begging, cadging drinks, theft... and of course the more time passes the more alcohol is needed to stay alive so the behavior escalates.

A binge drinker is no less an alcoholic. But they are less able to function while drunk because they do not have the tolerance a chronic alcoholic does. A binge drinker can remain sober for days, weeks, even months. But when things get hard, or simply given the opportunity, they drink. A lot. A bottle or two of vodka in one sitting. Drowning in their own vomit drunk. And they will wake up and do it again. And again. Until they need money, need to go to work, need to go home, whatever, and then they will detox themselves and return to sobriety. Until they can do it again. And the younger a person is, the more likely that this is what they do. And it's a more common type of alcoholism in the desperately poor. Typically binge drinkers are far more aware that their behavior is not considered normal. The will drink beer with friends until they are alone, and then ingest an insane amount of liquor.

A chronic alcoholic can stop at drunk. A binge drinker typically cannot until they are unconscious. A pail of beer soothes a need for a chronic alcoholic, but it is merely an appetizer for a binge drinker. A chronic alcoholic can get up and function three hours after drinking. A binge drinker is more than likely lying on the floor in their own sick. Chronic alcoholics stop really feeling hangovers. Binge drinkers still feel them desperately. A chronic alcoholic may need another drink after a few hours, to feel normal, but DTs won't start in immediately. A binge drinker has to have another drink in a few hours if they are going to avoid DTs that can be deadly. Otherwise they are absolutely incapable of going anywhere until they are better, or die.

If Mary Kelly was a chronic alcoholic, she may well have been up and relatively lucid and cheerful. If she was a binge drinker, most likely she was still unconscious after that span of time, but if she was up she would have been miserable and frantic.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I think that most people would agree that 2 of the most important and well researched books on Ripper murders are "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" by Philip Sugden, and "Jack the Ripper: The Facts by Paul Begg.

Sugden quotes Mrs Cox describing Kelly as follows:
"She was very drunk and could scarcely answer me but said good-night".
Jack The Ripper: The Uncensored Facts (2002 edition, page 328)

Begg quotes Mrs Cox as follows:
"Kelly was barely able to speak and Mrs Cox realised that she was very drunk".
(Jack the Ripper - The Facts (2004 edition, page 281)

Sugden's source appears to be, "Statement of Mary Ann Cox to Police 9th November 1888, copy filed with CPM.

Begg's source is quoted as "MJ/SPC, NE188, Box 3, Case Paper 19, London Metropolitan Archives.

I tried to access London Metropolitan Archives online, but these particular papers appear not to have been digitised yet.

Mary appears to be no stranger to drunkenness.
She was evicted from her home in Paternoster Row due to drunken disorderliness, and indeed smashed the window in 13 Miller's Court when drunk.

I still think that the likelihood is that Kelly was extremely drunk and did not venture out again.

I do not have an entrenched position on any aspect of the Ripper case, I am happy to be proved wrong, rethink my position and move on.

Let's leave the last word to Ann Druyan as quoted in Carl Sagan's masterpiece "The Demon-Haunted World".

"Remember, you're very new at this. You might be mistaken. You've been wrong before".

[The Good Michael]

I think that most people would agree that 2 of the most important and well researched books on Ripper murders are "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" by Philip Sugden, and "Jack the Ripper: The Facts by Paul Begg.

I still think that the likelihood is that Kelly was extremely drunk and did not venture out again.

I believe Kelly was an alcoholic. Her life pattern indicates that to me, or what I can deduce from the anecdotes about her. I've seen alcoholics pass out, get up 30 minutes later, and go out to buy a sandwich and more alcohol, perhaps cigarettes. Alcoholics are a marvel to me, someone who just has perhaps one beer a month on average. After one, I usually want to take a nap. Alcoholics can do almost anything, if not well. Look at the drunk drivers who have driven 100 miles with blood alcohol levels of over.2% who can still pass initial sobriety tests. If Kelly was an alcoholic, and if she wanted to get more drink, or go solicit, no doubt she could have.

Mike

[GUT]

I believe Kelly was an alcoholic. Her life pattern indicates that to me, or what I can deduce from the anecdotes about her. I've seen alcoholics pass out, get up 30 minutes later, and go out to buy a sandwich and more alcohol, perhaps cigarettes. Alcoholics are a marvel to me, someone who just has perhaps one beer a month on average. After one, I usually want to take a nap. Alcoholics can do almost anything, if not well. Look at the drunk drivers who have driven 100 miles with blood alcohol levels of over.2% who can still pass initial sobriety tests. If Kelly was an alcoholic, and if she wanted to get more drink, or go solicit, no doubt she could have.

Mike

I know some very high functioning alcoholics, I have seen Barristers run criminal trials while drunk, I have seen a watch maker rebuild a watch, when he could barely talk. Many people have no grasp of how efficiently an alcoholic can operate even when drunk.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I know some very high functioning alcoholics, I have seen Barristers run criminal trials while drunk, I have seen a watch maker rebuild a watch, when he could barely talk. Many people have no grasp of how efficiently an alcoholic can operate even when drunk.

Gut/Good Michael, I agree that the aspect of Kelly's level of dependence of alcohol is a pivotal one.

If she was a "functioning" alcoholic, then she may well have been able to go back out after her assignation with the blotchy faced man. Although I would suggest that alcoholics may balk at going out in the early hours of a rainy morning.

The point made by Michael Richards is a good one when he says:

"When you add to the facts you've mentioned that Mary had a history of running arrears even before she did so with McCarthy, you can safely assume that even when the chips were down so to speak Mary Kelly did not have a record of working the streets to even pay for her accommodations, let alone more booze...and since the places Mary could get booze were closed, there is ZERO impetus for someone like Mary to go out and solicit strangers in the rain."

My own feeling is that if we look at all references to Kelly being drunk, she seems to be a noisy and quarrelsome individual, rather than an alcoholic who needed a large intake of alcohol simply to function on any meaningful level.

The more I think over my initial thought that Kelly did not leave the room after Mrs Cox saw her at 11.45pm, the more it seems entirely plausible.

If Kelly did not leave her room again, it means that the blotchy face man assumes a greater importance than has previously been asserted.

It is entirely possible that the broad blotchy face man was the killer of Kelly, and quite probably of the other 4 canonical victims, and in my opinion probably Tabram too.

[Abby Normal]

Folks, I have checked the threads and haven't been able to find any postings relating to this topic.
Apologies If I have missed it.

I have been bothered for years by one specific thing relating to Mary Jane Kelly’s murder.

According to Mrs Cox, she saw Kelly in the company of a man at approx’ 11.45pm on Thursday 8th November.

According to Mrs Cox, Kelly was “Very drunk and could scarcely answer me, but said good-night to me”.

Mrs Picket's evidence indicates that Kelly was still alive, and singing, at 12.30am

There is general agreement that the evening of the 8th and into the 9th November was drizzly at least, and possibly raining quite heavily on occasions.

Put simply, I am asking why on earth would Kelly wander back out in the early hours of a cold damp morning when she had clearly been very intoxicated shortly before?

I suppose we have all over indulged on occasions and have stumbled into bed the worse for wear, glad that we managed to make it back home to the safety of our beds. As soon as our heads hit the pillow we are fast asleep.
Why should Kelly be any different?

Hutchinson stated that he saw Kelly at 2.00am on the morning of Friday 9th November she was “spreeish”.

This does not square with someone who barely 2 hours before had been so drunk that she could hardly string a coherent sentence together.
Of all the witnesses who may have seen the murderer, Hutchinson clearly gave the most detailed (too detailed?) description.

It is clear that Abberline gave some credence to Hutchinson’s evidence, but the fact that Hutchinson quickly vanishes from the police investigation, surely clearly indicates that they were no longer giving much credence to his story.

I do not believe that the evidence given by Sarah Lewis and Mrs Kennedy re the possibility of Kelly being alive in the early hours of Friday 9th November have any bearing on the murder of Mary Jane Kelly.

To sum up:
• Kelly had been drinking for a good part of the evening.
• By 11.45 she was very drunk and could hardly talk.
• Her client presumably had sex with her, possibly several times, and
possibly for at least part of their assignation, when Kelly was passed
out due to extreme intoxication.


I also think that her client took advantage of her extreme inebriation to murder her.

Hi Barn
Very good idea for a post and I pretty much agree with you.

The evidence is that Mary Kelly was very drunk. Eye witness testimony from Cox- a woman who knew mary and was no stranger to the effects of alcohol, being surrounded by it on a daily basis. And from a reliable witness who the police did not question her credibility and who's story is corroborated by other witnesses. Mary Kelly is not seen out again that evening by any other witness- except Hutch.

Good ole Hutch. without going into all the problems with this witness/credibility which has been hashed out ad nauseum, suffice to say that it boils down to whether you believe him or not. I don't. I think he was there, as corroborated by Sara Lewis, but I do not believe he saw Mary nor A-man and made that part up for notoriety and or financial gain. I think he was looking for a place to crash and when he discovered she was already preoccupied, waited around for her guest to leave.

All the evidence points to Mary Kelly having no intention or werewithall to venture out again that evening:

She was already very drunk.
Blotchy had a pale of beer, so she was probably going to get drunker.
She felt comfortable with Blotchy, enough to sing to, hang out with for a while, and start a fire. Not the behavior of a prostitute who wants a quicky so she can go out and make more money.
The night was cold and rainy.
Unlike the other victims, she was not as desperate, and at least had a roof over head for that night.
No one else saw her out after she goes in with Blotchy.

Mary Kelly is the key to this. All the various witnesses describe her being with four men that night. If I was a detective, I would put my money it was one of these men:

Barnett-had an alibi and cleared by police
Hutch-IMHO not a credible witnesss
A-man-probably fictitious
Blotchy- ???

Blotchy is the last credible suspect seen entering Mary's place with her, he never comes forward nor is Identified by police, he is the epitome of the avg joe, local Profile of a serial killer and he fits the description of the witness Lawende, who was the best witness according to the police.

In my personal opinion, all evidence considered, Blotchy is most likely to be Mary Kelly's killer and therefore Jack the Ripper.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Barn
Very good idea for a post and I pretty much agree with you.

The evidence is that Mary Kelly was very drunk. Eye witness testimony from Cox- a woman who knew mary and was no stranger to the effects of alcohol, being surrounded by it on a daily basis. And from a reliable witness who the police did not question her credibility and who's story is corroborated by other witnesses. Mary Kelly is not seen out again that evening by any other witness- except Hutch.

Good ole Hutch. without going into all the problems with this witness/credibility which has been hashed out ad nauseum, suffice to say that it boils down to whether you believe him or not. I don't. I think he was there, as corroborated by Sara Lewis, but I do not believe he saw Mary nor A-man and made that part up for notoriety and or financial gain. I think he was looking for a place to crash and when he discovered she was already preoccupied, waited around for her guest to leave.

All the evidence points to Mary Kelly having no intention or werewithall to venture out again that evening:

She was already very drunk.
Blotchy had a pale of beer, so she was probably going to get drunker.
She felt comfortable with Blotchy, enough to sing to, hang out with for a while, and start a fire. Not the behavior of a prostitute who wants a quicky so she can go out and make more money.
The night was cold and rainy.
Unlike the other victims, she was not as desperate, and at least had a roof over head for that night.
No one else saw her out after she goes in with Blotchy.

Mary Kelly is the key to this. All the various witnesses describe her being with four men that night. If I was a detective, I would put my money it was one of these men:

Barnett-had an alibi and cleared by police
Hutch-IMHO not a credible witnesss
A-man-probably fictitious
Blotchy- ???

Blotchy is the last credible suspect seen entering Mary's place with her, he never comes forward nor is Identified by police, he is the epitome of the avg joe, local Profile of a serial killer and he fits the description of the witness Lawende, who was the best witness according to the police.

In my personal opinion, all evidence considered, Blotchy is most likely to be Mary Kelly's killer and therefore Jack the Ripper.

Good post Abby.

You have teased out a couple of things that I had failed to consider, in particular the fact that she seems to be settling in for a comfy evening with Blotchy.

She was already very drunk.
Blotchy had a pale of beer, so she was probably going to get drunker.
She felt comfortable with Blotchy, enough to sing to, hang out with for a while, and start a fire. Not the behavior of a prostitute who wants a quicky so she can go out and make more money.
The night was cold and rainy.
Unlike the other victims, she was not as desperate, and at least had a roof over head for that night.
No one else saw her out after she goes in with Blotchy.


Cheers!