Did Mary know her killer?

[The Good Michael]

we have zero evidence that Mary ever took anyone to her room to perform sex acts for money.

There is no evidence she had sex with any clients...inside or outside. Just because she was named as a prostitute by so many people, doesn't mean she actually had sex ever. She may have been a virgin. In fact, her husband's death might have come before consummation. On the other hand, had she actually taken money for sex, I'm sure she preferred doing it up against a cold wall on a rainy night more than bringing someone to her warm, private room because she earned more money that way...if she was an actual prostitute I mean. Come to think of it, there's really no evidence she ever used a toilet either. You might be on to something..or simply ON something.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

There is no evidence she had sex with any clients...inside or outside. Just because she was named as a prostitute by so many people, doesn't mean she actually had sex ever. She may have been a virgin. In fact, her husband's death might have come before consummation. On the other hand, had she actually taken money for sex, I'm sure she preferred doing it up against a cold wall on a rainy night more than bringing someone to her warm, private room because she earned more money that way...if she was an actual prostitute I mean. Come to think of it, there's really no evidence she ever used a toilet either. You might be on to something..or simply ON something.

Mike

Hey Maybe mary charged her clients more to sing to them while she was having sex with them! kind of like chapmans "musical shaves".

Maybe you really are on to something!!!

Come to think of it, maybe she charged Barnett to have sex with her when they were together. I mean come on-she was a prostitute.

And charged Bowyer and McCarthy whenever they came to collect the rent-come on she was a prostitute.

And charged Maxwell the price of admission for viewing her Vomit-I mean she was a prostitute.

And Im sure she got a boat load from the ripper for letting him kill her-come on she was a prostitute.

Im sure every single time she had any kind of inter personal relationship with someone she charged them for it-she was a freaking prostitute after all!!!

[Abby Normal]

Well y'all, if Blotchy was the Ripper maybe his MO was to get in good with MJK to eventually have access to that horrific hovel. Hang out with her several times, ply her with booze and fish and chips etc. Sex, who knows?, maybe optional like in Seinfeld......but once the trust was established, then he could get in there, door locked, and finally fulfill his evil fantasies...

It seems a similar method may have been at work with Eddowes..she was drinking with somebody and later, after jail, off to see the Ripper...

As the scare went on, maybe he realized a buttering up period was the best new MO...

A bit off thread, sorry, but if one starts thinking of "friend" Blotchy as the Ripper then it lends itself to some backtracking...


Greg

Hi Greg
That's actually a great point.

[Abby Normal]

OK-back to the original point of the thread-Did she know her killer?

Even IF (big if IMHO)Mary was actively prostituting herself that night, with Blotchy or anyone else---as a young attractive woman with her own place-Im sure she probably had a line of interested men wanting and waiting for the opportunity to use her services. And/or be her next boyfriend. Men she would have known from the pubs or from daily life. Like hutch. Like Barnett. like Flemming.

Someone like mary DID NOT have to resort to prostituting herself to random strange men. Men she had to go out proactively accosting. So again, prostituting or not, she more than likely knew the men she was with. And they knew her. She knew her killer.

[The Good Michael]

Hey Maybe mary charged her clients more to sing to them while she was having sex with them! kind of like chapmans "musical shaves".

Maybe you really are on to something!!!

Come to think of it, maybe she charged Barnett to have sex with her when they were together. I mean come on-she was a prostitute.

And charged Bowyer and McCarthy whenever they came to collect the rent-come on she was a prostitute.

And charged Maxwell the price of admission for viewing her Vomit-I mean she was a prostitute.

And Im sure she got a boat load from the ripper for letting him kill her-come on she was a prostitute.

Im sure every single time she had any kind of inter personal relationship with someone she charged them for it-she was a freaking prostitute after all!!!

I can't disagree with any of this. Maybes are all possible. Maybe she wasn't a prostitute at all. She was different from the other victims, or some would have us believe.

Mike

[DRoy]

DRoy.
What evidence?
No-one knows what Mary was doing between 1:00 am and 2:00, nor between 2:30 am and 10:45 am, when she was found by Bowyer.
There is no evidence, and the only other evidence that does exist is rejected (Hutchinson & Kennedy).
Remember Nelson, and his "I see no ships!" - That is what we have here, so of course you only see what you want to see.

Two witnesses exist that saw her out after 1:00 am, but you choose to ignore them so you can improperly claim she never went out again.

This is a prime example of a horse race that is clearly fixed.

Jon,

You misunderstood me. The evidence I was referring to was in regards to what we know of MJK from Barnett and other witnesses, not just her actions that night.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

There is no evidence she had sex with any clients...inside or outside. Just because she was named as a prostitute by so many people, doesn't mean she actually had sex ever. She may have been a virgin. In fact, her husband's death might have come before consummation. On the other hand, had she actually taken money for sex, I'm sure she preferred doing it up against a cold wall on a rainy night more than bringing someone to her warm, private room because she earned more money that way...if she was an actual prostitute I mean. Come to think of it, there's really no evidence she ever used a toilet either. You might be on to something..or simply ON something.

Mike

Obviously you and cd are missing my point, or just having fun twisting it around, but simply put...we have witness evidence that Mary did engage in prostitution at times, and we do have witness evidence that she admitted as much...however, what we do not have is any credible evidence, witness or otherwise, that Mary ever at any time brought a client to her room. A room in her own name,...which in and of itself is a clue to the answer here...its not unusual for prostitutes to use fake names when plying their trade. I believe Marie Jeanette might be one that Mary used at one time.

You can believe anything you want, so can cd... Ive no issues with anyone doing that...I just have issues when their beliefs hit these threads posing as facts, or probabilities. Like Mary was soliciting her last night...or that Liz was...or that Kate was.

We have no proof of any of those "facts" you seem more willing to accept than the face value evidence we do have. It seems easier and more palatable for you to assume the lowest in behaviours.

The truth is that its possible that Mary entertained someone who was nice to her by singing to him...its possible Liz Stride went to Berner Street for some additional work among the Jews, or for a date, and its possible that Kate Eddowes planned to meet someone rather than happened to meet up with someone while soliciting immediately after being released from jail hung over....all of those are within accepted evidence parameters...which is...that there is some evidence that would support the conclusion.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Hello Michael, hope you are well.

Obviously you and cd are missing my point, or just having fun twisting it around, but simply put...we have witness evidence that Mary did engage in prostitution at times, and we do have witness evidence that she admitted as much...however, what we do not have is any credible evidence, witness or otherwise, that Mary ever at any time brought a client to her room.

Who should we expect to provide this evidence?

...I just have issues when their beliefs hit these threads posing as facts, or probabilities. Like Mary was soliciting her last night...or that Liz was...or that Kate was.

Not too long ago Michael, you told me in no uncertain terms that it was proven that Hutchinson was discredited.
So, my question is, do you only have issues when others present their beliefs as fact, but not yourself?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael, hope you are well.

Who should we expect to provide this evidence?


Not too long ago Michael, you told me in no uncertain terms that it was proven that Hutchinson was discredited. So, my question is, do you only have issues when others present their beliefs as fact, but not yourself?

Hi Jon,

Im well, hope you are as well.

Well, I don't know who might discover some evidence that shows us what was actually the situation for the cases I mentioned, I jut know that in its absence its illogical to simply assume an answer if we truly want some truth uncovered.

As for Hutchinson, the statement about him being discredited didn't originate with me as you well know, so, I am relying on some historical data that takes such a position on his statement. When there is some position drawn in the sand its not sheer speculation to follow it...doesn't mean it must be correct...just that, as you know, Hutch's "clues" were not used beyond that first week that they were given..and it was suggested he was a discredited witness.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

Well, I don't know who might discover some evidence that shows us what was actually the situation for the cases I mentioned, I jut know that in its absence its illogical to simply assume an answer if we truly want some truth uncovered.

Hi Michael.
Ah, sorry, I didn't mean whom today, I meant which character from Kelly's environment should we expect to keep an eye on her movements, day and night, and then tell the press?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael.
Ah, sorry, I didn't mean whom today, I meant which character from Kelly's environment should we expect to keep an eye on her movements, day and night, and then tell the press?

I think Jon that we have a few credible sources who, (as I believe Mrs Mortimer is in the Berner Street case), have no apparent reason to fabricate. For the most part objective accounts, and with good proximity to the person in question. For me in the Kelly murder that is Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater and Maria Harvey. Barnett can still be legitimately suspected to have had something to do with it, cant be certain his story isn't self serving. Or McCarthy for that matter. Blotchy we don't know. But he is on paper the best suspect based on the knowns and the fact he is the last seen with her and it was entering her room.

These are witnesses that we can be sure knew Mary, and witnesses that had access to her on the day... and in the days leading up to... her death.

We have no such evidence for Maxwell, Hutchinson or some of the ancillary accounts that don't deal directly with Mary herself..like Lewis's.

Since you asked.......

All the best Jon

[The Good Michael]

I don't think it is at all uncommon for a customer availing himself of a prostitute's services to try to delude himself that the lady in question has some physical or emotional attraction to him and is therefore willing to pay a little extra to encourage that fantasy.

I just got back from the Philippines. This happens 1000 times a day there. Old men doing the whole romance thing with young girls and after a time, absolutely believing in their own charm and youthfulness as the things that get them the girl. Pathetic and understandable.

Mike

[Wickerman]

I think Jon that we have a few credible sources who, (as I believe Mrs Mortimer is in the Berner Street case), have no apparent reason to fabricate. For the most part objective accounts, and with good proximity to the person in question. For me in the Kelly murder that is Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater and Maria Harvey. Barnett can still be legitimately suspected to have had something to do with it, cant be certain his story isn't self serving. Or McCarthy for that matter. Blotchy we don't know. But he is on paper the best suspect based on the knowns and the fact he is the last seen with her and it was entering her room.

These are witnesses that we can be sure knew Mary, and witnesses that had access to her on the day... and in the days leading up to... her death.

We have no such evidence for Maxwell, Hutchinson or some of the ancillary accounts that don't deal directly with Mary herself..like Lewis's.

Since you asked.......

All the best Jon

Yes, I asked.
The reason I asked was because I wondered who you thought was available to make this observation.

Ok, first Mrs Prater, she lived upstairs, her room faced Dorset St. the access to her upstairs room was via the passage entrance.
So, I fail to see how she can be expected to know whether Kelly used that back room for entertaining.
Mrs Prater may have told us she did, if she had been asked. From her statements it appears Prater was never asked that question.
So how can we judge whether Kelly did or not if Prater was never asked?

Mrs Cox, she was in and out all night, but how trustworthy is her statement? No-one was able to verify Blotchy even existed, no-one saw Kelly in a pub with such a man prior to midnight. Prater never saw Cox walk down the passage between 1:00-1:30, as was claimed.
Was Cox ever asked if Mary entertained in her little room?
It appears not, so like before, how can we judge when she was never asked?

Maria Harvey did not live with Kelly on that particular night. We can also tell that Harvey was also never asked if Kelly was in the habit of entertaining men in her room.

Blotchy never came forward to settle the issue of why he was there, if he ever existed.

McCarthy was not likely to offer such damming information to the authorities. It is quite one thing for the tenants to say what these rooms were used for, but it is not likely the landlord is going to offer the same information.

So, what is this theory that an apparent life-time prostitute never brought men back to her room based on?

If you do not possess any positive evidence that she never did, how is that more believable than the opposite argument that she must have?

[GUT]

Yes, I asked.
The reason I asked was because I wondered who you thought was available to make this observation.

Ok, first Mrs Prater, she lived upstairs, her room faced Dorset St. the access to her upstairs room was via the passage entrance.
So, I fail to see how she can be expected to know whether Kelly used that back room for entertaining.
Mrs Prater may have told us she did, if she had been asked. From her statements it appears Prater was never asked that question.
So how can we judge whether Kelly did or not if Prater was never asked?

Mrs Cox, she was in and out all night, but how trustworthy is her statement? No-one was able to verify Blotchy even existed, no-one saw Kelly in a pub with such a man prior to midnight. Prater never saw Cox walk down the passage between 1:00-1:30, as was claimed.
Was Cox ever asked if Mary entertained in her little room?
It appears not, so like before, how can we judge when she was never asked?

Maria Harvey did not live with Kelly on that particular night. We can also tell that Harvey was also never asked if Kelly was in the habit of entertaining men in her room.

Blotchy never came forward to settle the issue of why he was there, if he ever existed.

McCarthy was not likely to offer such damming information to the authorities. It is quite one thing for the tenants to say what these rooms were used for, but it is not likely the landlord is going to offer the same information.

So, what is this theory that an apparent life-time prostitute never brought men back to her room based on?

If you do not possess any positive evidence that she never did, how is that more believable than the opposite argument that she must have?

And more to the point not one neighbour, associate or friend says "Mary would never have bough a strange man home" even when news of Astrakhan man and Blotchy is out there.

[Scott Nelson]

We really need Ben Holm to chime in here.