Did Mary know her killer?

[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

[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,

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]

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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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."

Opinions of the press hardly constitute factual knowledge.
From the official perspective, Joseph Isaacs (whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat.), was not picked up in early December because he resembled Blotchy.

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.

Not sure what you mean that, the Home Office doesn't investigate by itself, it is the head office in charge of all investigations.

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.

I don't know whether this was an interrupted murder, and if you are honest, neither do you. We may all interpret this incident in different ways, precisely because no factual details exist to enable us to determine one way or the other.
I can see the argument from both sides, so have not committed one way or the other. Though at one time I was quite convinced this murder was not related to the others, these days I am reserved on that point.

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.

If that were the reason, there is nothing to be gained by killing her after she left the police. The idea is to kill her before she talks to police, surely.

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.

You pick on one of any number of reason's for facial mutilations, yet not all the victims were mutilated in this fashion. So why kill Nichols & Chapman and not carve up their faces?

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.

Ah, so now we leave the facts behind and arrive back at those unsettled issues.
We got there eventually

[Michael W Richards]

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!

Jon is in Toronto? Really. That makes the nosh and pints even more intriguing Ben.

[Wickerman]

Jon is in Toronto? Really. That makes the nosh and pints even more intriguing Ben.

Kitchener actually Michael, so a good hours drive away. So not a certainty, but hopefully something can be worked out.

[RockySullivan]

IF the killing did take place later...is it possible the ripper heard bowyer knock, hid until he left and then scrammed out of there quick?

[Michael W Richards]

Kitchener actually Michael, so a good hours drive away. So not a certainty, but hopefully something can be worked out.

Maybe we could meet somewhere in the middle if needed Jon, it would be a pleasure. Or maybe I could bring Ben to you...the KW area is pretty cool.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

Maybe we could meet somewhere in the middle if needed Jon, it would be a pleasure. Or maybe I could bring Ben to you...the KW area is pretty cool.

Cheers Jon

Indeed it would, sadly there is nothing between Cambridge and Milton

There is a Montanas Cookhouse in Milton.

http://montanas.ca/location_map.php?id=617

[Wickerman]

IF the killing did take place later...is it possible the ripper heard bowyer knock, hid until he left and then scrammed out of there quick?

Bowyer also looked in through the window.

[RockySullivan]

Bowyer also looked in through the window.

Yea I know. I'm assuming he knocked first. Could the ripper stand out of view to th side of the window?