Did Mary know her killer?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again Jon,

In response;

As Hutchinson was accepted and his story was still being pursued well into November, it is apparent he was deemed at least as reliable as Cox, or indeed any other witness.

From the Star on November 15th:"As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room."

That's just one quote, there are others which suggest, as virtually everyone knows, Hutchinsons story was abandoned. The fact that Astrakans description appears in a police Gazette later in the month only shows that the article was likely written during the brief period he was believed.

Surely there is more to be gained by exploring the unsettled issues, but, to stay with "facts", there are both unrelated facts, and related facts.
Is this where you feel the need for debate?

Jon, any potential relationship between the senior officers roles within HMG and the Ripper cases is unknown, not decidedly unrelated. The fact that the Home Office was investigating the crimes in tandem with the City and Met police is proof that a possible connection of the crimes and the state of the war against anarchy in London was being assessed. These crimes occurred during the Parnell Commission which most officials had at least a tangential connection with, as a plot to assassinate a member of parliament was being foiled, a year after a plot to kill the queen was foiled, and less than a year after 2 conspirators hung for that offense. A year after Bloody Sunday, within the same year that many labour strikes crippled regular business in London, and as the bulging have not population grew to almost unmanageable proportions. To imagine that everything stopped while a single madman owned the streets isn't just naïve, its provably incorrect.

Things like the fact that Liz Strides death matches none of the women in the unsolved file is extremely important, and it is not something that can or should be addressed with..."there may be good reasons for that". There are no reasons present within the known evidence to make excuses for that major discrepancy, so its just a matter whether you or others wish to invoke an unsubstantiated and unwarranted excuse of murder interuptus.

If Stride was not a legitimate part of the Canon, then this JtR fellow wasn't pissed off when he met Kate, and the unusual additions to the wound patterns that pre-existed with the priors needs to be addressed. The fact that Kate had her nose cut almost off may well be an important clue when considering we have witness testimony that Kate intended to take a name to the police for the murders. Sticking her nose in that persons business, as it were.

There are precedents for facial mutilations which occurred when Irish self rule factions discovered snitches within their ranks. Some had initials carved into their face.

What we know, or should be able to agree upon, is that there is no consistent theme, method, or level of skill and knowledge present within the Five, and that alone suggests that some may have been killed for other reasons than a mad killer on the loose.

Which incidentally, has to be the among the least frequent reasons for murder.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

Nope, still not true I'm afraid, Jon.

Onto more important things, though, and I hope we're still on for beers in Toronto? Mike and Scott are still up for it!

I'm hoping so Ben, work permitting.

[Ben]

As Hutchinson was accepted and his story was still being pursued well into November, it is apparent he was deemed at least as reliable as Cox, or indeed any other witness.

Nope, still not true I'm afraid, Jon.

Onto more important things, though, and I hope we're still on for beers in Toronto? Mike and Scott are still up for it!

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson is a late to the party witness that was discarded and therefore not having any value to the investigation, and Maxwell was told on the stand her evidence is contrary to all the testimonies before her.

Michael, the initial Coroner's inquiry is not "the party", this is merely an early step, one of many, in a murder investigation.
"The party", if you prefer, is the police investigation itself, and what specific time any witness comes forward is of little importance to the police, what is important is that they do.
As Hutchinson was accepted and his story was still being pursued well into November, it is apparent he was deemed at least as reliable as Cox, or indeed any other witness.

All of those are good choices for discussion Jon, ...but in reality there are things that can be proven "satisfactorily". For example;

1. Based on Methodogies and Techniques we can safely conclude that Polly and Annie were killed by the same man.
2. There were a few men who had committed or would commit murders of young women living in that area at that time.
3. There is no evidence that proves empirically that any of the women did not know one another within the Canonical Group, or that any of them they did not know their killer.
4. Liz Stride was murdered in a manner and left in a position that matches none of the other unsolved murders within the file.
5. There is evidence that at least 3 of the Canonical Group had relationships that had either been severed or drastically changed within a 2 week period of their murders.
6. Its a fact that all of the senior investigators assigned to the Ripper cases were active within the Intelligence communities, subverting assassination plots, having just foiled a Jubillee bomb plot, and that their most pressing cases concerned terrorism, not murdered street women.
7. It is also a fact that they were trained in subterfuge, misrepresentations and secrecy.
8. Its within the evidence that the wounds inflicted on the victims after Annie Chapman were not thought to show any appreciable skill or knowledge.

You know I could list tons of things that seem to be facts in these cases, and things that do not support a conclusion that one man ran amok Jon, Ill stop at 8.

A few of the points you list are "interpretations" (1, 3, 8), Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, can be "facts", and then we may ask, whether 4, 5, 6, or 7 have any bearing on the case. There may well be a valid reason for the difference in #4.
Interesting that you also dwell on points like "subterfuge" and "secrecy", as if to imply this knowledge may have some bearing on the case - or are they unrelated facts?
And yes we can make a list of known facts, but what is there to debate if the issue is already a fact?
Surely there is more to be gained by exploring the unsettled issues, but, to stay with "facts", there are both unrelated facts, and related facts.
Is this where you feel the need for debate?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

In response;

As yet, we have no reliable indication that Marie Kelly was her real name.

Actually we have been unable to confirm the story given to us by Barnett for a Mary Jane Kelly....who says she gave him her real background anyway? the room had a lease, the name on the lease was Mary Jane Kelly, for now..that seems to indicate it was her name.

There is a complete lack of evidence for either argument, outside the evidence you choose to reject. Quite reasonably Michael, how can anyone enter into an argument by rejecting the only evidence that does exist, and was taken by the police at the time, and then in consequence claim no evidence exists. Surely, no-one needs to explain how ludicrous that sounds.

Im assuming you are speaking about claims by Hutchinson and Maxwell to name a few? Your second sentence seems to suggest I hold with abandoning accepted evidence Jon, which is about 180 degrees from what Ive always said. Hutchinson is a late to the party witness that was discarded and therefore not having any value to the investigation, and Maxwell was told on the stand her evidence is contrary to all the testimonies before her.

In principal that sounds good, but seeing as nothing can be proven either way, what do we talk about next? Quantum mechanics, Relativity, ...is there a God, Are 'we' alone....

All of those are good choices for discussion Jon, ...but in reality there are things that can be proven "satisfactorily". For example;

1. Based on Methodogies and Techniques we can safely conclude that Polly and Annie were killed by the same man.
2. There were a few men who had committed or would commit murders of young women living in that area at that time.
3. There is no evidence that proves empirically that any of the women did not know one another within the Canonical Group, or that any of them they did not know their killer.
4. Liz Stride was murdered in a manner and left in a position that matches none of the other unsolved murders within the file.
5. There is evidence that at least 3 of the Canonical Group had relationships that had either been severed or drastically changed within a 2 week period of their murders.
6. Its a fact that all of the senior investigators assigned to the Ripper cases were active within the Intelligence communities, subverting assassination plots, having just foiled a Jubillee bomb plot, and that their most pressing cases concerned terrorism, not murdered street women.
7. It is also a fact that they were trained in subterfuge, misrepresentations and secrecy.
8. Its within the evidence that the wounds inflicted on the victims after Annie Chapman were not thought to show any appreciable skill or knowledge.

You know I could list tons of things that seem to be facts in these cases, and things that do not support a conclusion that one man ran amok Jon, Ill stop at 8.

oh yeah....and there probably is a God, but he seems to be busy doing other things at the moment.

Cheers Mate

[Wickerman]

Mary had something that likely very few single women had in the East End, a room leased in her own name. Even today most strippers, prostitutes and call girls use fake names so that their client couldn't track them down, its one measure of security they desperately need in their line of work.

Hi Michael.
As yet, we have no reliable indication that Marie Kelly was her real name.

Here is the crux Jon.....if there is no evidence to suggest that she did, no witness that stated she knew Mary and she brought clients in, no witness to say Mary started bringing men in after Joe left, no witnesses at all...

There is a complete lack of evidence for either argument, outside the evidence you choose to reject.
Quite reasonably Michael, how can anyone enter into an argument by rejecting the only evidence that does exist, and was taken by the police at the time, and then in consequence claim no evidence exists.
Surely, no-one needs to explain how ludicrous that sounds.

Enough presupposing, lets stick to provable premises.

In principal that sounds good, but seeing as nothing can be proven either way, what do we talk about next?
Quantum mechanics, Relativity, ...is there a God, Are 'we' alone....

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Jon,

Ive enclosed responses within your quoted post;

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 Prater told reporters that she could hear when Mary moved about in her room, and that she heard a cry "as if from the courtyard", which to me confirms that when she was inside she was aware of what happened in room 13 by virtue of the sounds. I didn't intend to suggest that they were "buds".

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?

Mrs Cox spoke with Mary that last night, and she was on the courtyard ground floor which meant she would often see Mary. She also gave a statement which portrays her own actions as attempts to solicit customers, something Im sure she wouldn't want to have to admit to an audience unless she felt compelled to be truthful. Neither Mary Ann or Elizabeth stated that they were aware of Mary ever bringing men in after Joe left, other than Blotchy, and while Joe was there it seems unlikely that he would have condoned sharing his 10 x 10 space with a client of Marys. He also stated he objected to her "working the streets", which is illuminating.

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.

But to reiterate a point, Maria also never suggested that Mary brought clients in and in fact she gave Mary a coin or 2 that last night to help her out.

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

If you were the last person seen with a victim who was murdered in the fashion Mary was and had anonymity as far as the courtyard people go, would you volunteer to come forward and claim to be Blotchy?

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.

McCarthy likely did not interact with Mary or Joe much, and it doesn't seem that he sent Bowyer by more often that once a week to see about collecting some rent, so I believe he probably didn't know what went on in that room on a daily basis. Put it this way, if Mary and McCarthy talked regularly don't you think she would have asked to have her window fixed? It was after all November.

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

Mary had something that likely very few single women had in the East End, a room leased in her own name. Even today most strippers, prostitutes and call girls use fake names so that their client couldn't track them down, its one measure of security they desperately need in their line of work. They meet hard cases all the time, and surely don't want these men showing up at their door. Also important is that Mary was a brothel worker before her slide down the economic ladder, also she was what seems to be a courtesan during her Paris time, so we are not talking about someone who might embrace the lower level clientele of a street walker.

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

Here is the crux Jon.....if there is no evidence to suggest that she did, no witness that stated she knew Mary and she brought clients in, no witness to say Mary started bringing men in after Joe left, no witnesses at all...as well as the evidence she was still living with someone there just over a week before her death, someone who objected to sharing Mary with clients, then the suggestion she did so anyway is based on peoples personal prejudices and preconceptions about "what whores do", not about what evidence we have to follow in that regard.
?

That last bit is an overarching problem here Jon, people present scenarios that reflect their imaginations rather than what is within the known evidence.

Its the same as suggesting that Liz Stride, Kate Eddowes and Mary were soliciting when they met their killer(s), when as you know the only "real" evidence we have like that is for the Nichols and Chapman murders.

Enough presupposing, lets stick to provable premises.

Cheers mate

[Scott Nelson]

We really need Ben Holm to chime in here.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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?