Did Mary know her killer?

[DRoy]

She was a prostitute, that by definition must rate as risky behaviour.

GUT,

Okay but then that had nothing to do with her age as women of all ages had to resort to that. Her situation being a bit different though as we don't know how long she had resorted back to selling herself.

No I'm on the fence about her knowing her killer, but your argument that she wouldn't take someone home because she was frightened of the "Ripper" just doesn't do it, do you think any of the victims after No. 1 [whoever that was] wasn't worried, but necessity took them into risk.

It wasn't just that she was frightened. She had the 'luxery' to know more about the murders than those before her. She also knew what street she lived on and that the murders were within minutes of it. All the witnesses have her drinking in pubs, not working the streets. We know she took friends home and allowed them to stay, the same can't be said about clients.

What we don't know is whether she had other means of income, when she would solicit (maybe only during light?), where she solicited, how often she went with a client, who her clientele was, where she took her clients, whether she ever took a client to her room, etc.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Absolutely, there is even a comment in the press within a day or two of Kelly's murder that Dorset St. has returned to normal. That you wouldn't think such a murder had taken place by the activities going on here, back to normal.

People have short memories.

Jon,

That's the notorious Dorset Street though, it can be somewhat expected. Once again, some were in dire need, others weren't (including some living in the court). I don't see Mary as being one of those in dire need and believe the evidence supports that view.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

There is evidence that, on the night of her death, she took a blotchy-faced man back to her room and there is evidence that she did the same with a prosperous-looking man in an astrakhan coat, both late at night and both on the same evening. There is no proof that these encounters were between a prostitute and her client and there is no obligation to take the testimony of the witnesses concerned at face value. There is, however, evidence that Kelly took men back to her room on the night of her death and, whilst there is no proof that these were for the purposes of prostitution, that is a not unreasonable interpretation. It's one thing to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses making these claims, but another thing entirely to pretend that such evidence does not exist.

To correct the above, yes, there is evidence that Mary brought someone home before midnight, however, there is also evidence that she was heard to sing songs until shortly after 1am. Not a "trick" that any prostitute would be called upon to perform. There is also evidence from a witness who is later discredited that Mary was seen out of her room after 11:45pm, so, its not evidence that anyone need believe was accurately and/or honestly reported. Therefore the only man that we know of that Mary took to her room after Barnett left was Blotchy and with the additional evidence of her singing while in the room with him, we have zero evidence that Mary ever took anyone to her room to perform sex acts for money.

Pretending that some evidence is credible when we have the historical records that indicate the police thought otherwise shortly after the statement was given...within a few days....in order to enable some speculation that she was soliciting that last night...that has everything to do with preconceptions and nothing to do with the actual believed evidence.

If people would stick to the accepted evidence this argument wouldn't need to be repeated, and summarily debunked, so often.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

And people always act reasonably don't they, especially when they're drunk and mid 20 years in age are nothing but rational at any time even when drunk.

What is reasonable is that people, when they go out and get drunk and then bring a friend home for a little song, is that they invite the person to stay or let them out when they become tired.

That's what the evidence here indicates GUT, one of those scenarios.

Cheers

[Abby Normal]

To correct the above, yes, there is evidence that Mary brought someone home before midnight, however, there is also evidence that she was heard to sing songs until shortly after 1am. Not a "trick" that any prostitute would be called upon to perform. There is also evidence from a witness who is later discredited that Mary was seen out of her room after 11:45pm, so, its not evidence that anyone need believe was accurately and/or honestly reported. Therefore the only man that we know of that Mary took to her room after Barnett left was Blotchy and with the additional evidence of her singing while in the room with him, we have zero evidence that Mary ever took anyone to her room to perform sex acts for money.

Pretending that some evidence is credible when we have the historical records that indicate the police thought otherwise shortly after the statement was given...within a few days....in order to enable some speculation that she was soliciting that last night...that has everything to do with preconceptions and nothing to do with the actual believed evidence.

If people would stick to the accepted evidence this argument wouldn't need to be repeated, and summarily debunked, so often.

Cheers

Exactly.
singing to and hanging out for over an hour with someone and bringing them to your home, is not the usual act of a prostitute/prostitution, let alone one overly concerned about money and thinking they need to procure several clients rather quickly. Nor is it behavior one would normally do with a complete stranger.

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly.
singing to and hanging out for over an hour with someone and bringing them to your home, is not the usual act of a prostitute/prostitution, let alone one overly concerned about money and thinking they need to procure several clients rather quickly. Nor is it behavior one would normally do with a complete stranger.

That extra point in bold is right on the money Abby, and extremely relevant to the thread.

Best regards

[Pcdunn]

Singing is very popular among the Irish, any time two or more get together, whether in a family home, or down at the pub.

I have finally just voted "yes", because it does seem to me that someone who knew Mary and really wanted to send a message about how much he hated her was responsible for slicing away her face.
But... if she knew a close male friend or ex-husband wanted to threaten her, why let him in? Either she wasn't aware of it in any measure...

OR was it a woman friend? We know she often had visitors, and a woman will open a door more readily to a woman she knows than to a stranger of either sex. The singing indicating she, or "they", were awake very late isn't too uncommon. I've read that in the past people tended to sleep in shifts, waking in the middle of the night, doing work or even visiting, and then returning to bed until dawn. More common in the eras before the electric light, of course, but Whitechapel could well have qualified in places, perhaps.

I know, no woman was seen entering the apartment. But a woman was seen leaving it-- possibly "Jill the Ripper"? Hmmm. The plot thickens...

[RockySullivan]

Was blotchy thought to be Irish? Was Kelly singing Irish songs? It makes sense Kelly might sing Irish songs to an Irish visitor

[RockySullivan]

Singing is very popular among the Irish, any time two or more get together, whether in a family home, or down at the pub.

I have finally just voted "yes", because it does seem to me that someone who knew Mary and really wanted to send a message about how much he hated her was responsible for slicing away her face.
But... if she knew a close male friend or ex-husband wanted to threaten her, why let him in? Either she wasn't aware of it in any measure...

OR was it a woman friend? We know she often had visitors, and a woman will open a door more readily to a woman she knows than to a stranger of either sex. The singing indicating she, or "they", were awake very late isn't too uncommon. I've read that in the past people tended to sleep in shifts, waking in the middle of the night, doing work or even visiting, and then returning to bed until dawn. More common in the eras before the electric light, of course, but Whitechapel could well have qualified in places, perhaps.

I know, no woman was seen entering the apartment. But a woman was seen leaving it-- possibly "Jill the Ripper"? Hmmm. The plot thickens...

Pc, there was a woman seen leaving Kelly's apartment?

[GregBaron]

Butter, baste then carve...

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

[Wickerman]

Jon,

That's the notorious Dorset Street though, it can be somewhat expected. Once again, some were in dire need, others weren't (including some living in the court). I don't see Mary as being one of those in dire need and believe the evidence supports that view.

Cheers
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.

[c.d.]

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


Hello Michael,

Why does this have to be taken as the word of God himself? Are we to assume that Mary's neighbors held some sort of bizarre fixation with her so that they camped out near their door and watched her door in 24 hour vigils recording Mary's every coming and going on some sort of Victorian Excel spreadsheet recording times, her manner of dress, her demeanor and who she was with? That seems quite unlikely.

And even if she was not in the habit of bringing back men to her room, how much of that could be attributable to not wanting to upset Barnett? In other words, don't bite the hand that feeds you. Now that he was out of the picture would that change things?

And finally, is there anything that would prevent her from bringing back a client to her room? Isn't there a first time for everything?

I am not saying that this is what she did but asking questions, putting facts in perspective and assigning weight to those "facts" seems to me to be a much better approach.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Jon,

That's the notorious Dorset Street though, it can be somewhat expected. Once again, some were in dire need, others weren't (including some living in the court). I don't see Mary as being one of those in dire need and believe the evidence supports that view.

Cheers
DRoy

Dire need? Maybe not but there was still the question of money for rent, food and drink.

c.d.

[c.d.]

"To correct the above, yes, there is evidence that Mary brought someone home before midnight, however, there is also evidence that she was heard to sing songs until shortly after 1am. Not a "trick" that any prostitute would be called upon to perform."

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.

c.d.

[Pcdunn]

Was the sighting of Mary leaving really someone else?

Pc, there was a woman seen leaving Kelly's apartment?

I was thinking of a witness claiming Mary Kelly had left her home again. I'm not sure if the time line fits, as I am a dabbler in the WC cases, just returning to them after a long absence. So feel free to tell me I'm wrong, I won't mind.

But consider... If "blotchy" wasn't seen leaving the Kelly hovel... Could he have disguised himself in some of Mary's garments? (Hey, if it's good enough for Sherlock Holmes...!)