Mary Kelly's men

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Of course, she didn't seem to know Blothchy that well, or if she did, he was never identified. Do you think he may have been a client?

Sure he might have been, or perhaps a new sugar daddy/boyfriend.

But I think it seems she did know him well! singing to him, hes got a bucket of ale. hes hanging out for a while-not the typical seeming prostitute transaction!She seemed very comfortable with him to be a stranger/ client she just picked up.

[John G]

its hard to prove a negative, but she had been recently sharing the room with her ex and had also been letting friends crash there.

also, if Aman story was true (and I don't think it was) there is no indication there of any overt prostitution business. No mention of money, no mention of "do you want the business" etc. And just previous to that she went up to Hutch, again a man she knew, and again no mention of overt prostitution activity.

Hi Abby,

Of course, she didn't seem to know Blothchy that well, or if she did, he was never identified. Do you think he may have been a client?

[John G]

On the contrary John, where is the evidence she did? She was sharing the room with Barnett since day one, he had only been gone a little over a week and Maria just moved out the Tuesday before the murder. You have 2 nights available for such activities...find some evidence then its sustainable as an argument.

You may argue MO and a rear attack, but the venue and the decorum are not consistent with strangers meeting. Which by the by is the evidence in the case of Polly and Annie both. As is the venue.

Hello Michael,

Well, there you are. As Maria and Barnett had just moved out it suddenly became far more practical for Kelly to entertain clients in her room.

It should also be noted that serial killers are quite capable of adapting their MO if the opportunity arises. Thus, Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, started off by attacking prostitutes in red light districts. However, one of his earlier victims, Patricia Atkinson, told him, "I've got a flat we can go there". He therefore drove her to her flat, parked outside and went in. He then hung up his coat on the back of the door before attacking her from behind with a hammer.

And, as I've noted before, another of Sutcliffe's victims was a 14 year old schoolgirl, who he attacked down a quiet country lane after engaging her on conversation.

I'm afraid serial killers are no where near as predictable as you seem to think.

[Abby Normal]

Well, it has been argued that JtR's MO was to attack his victims from behind, and that might explain the lack of defensive wounds or evidence that any of the C5 victims were given the opportunity to mount any kind of defence. Moreover, I seriously doubt that any of the victims perceived their killer as any kind of threat, until it was too late of course.

And where's the evidence that Kelly didn't use her room for purposes of solicitation?

its hard to prove a negative, but she had been recently sharing the room with her ex and had also been letting friends crash there.

also, if Aman story was true (and I don't think it was) there is no indication there of any overt prostitution business. No mention of money, no mention of "do you want the business" etc. And just previous to that she went up to Hutch, again a man she knew, and again no mention of overt prostitution activity.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I am afraid that I am going to have to disagree with most of your post.

"Mary Kelly was the only victim killed in her room."

Not surprising since she was the only victim that had her own room.

"She didn't need to go out and pick up strangers-she had a clientel pool."

But isn't that exactly what prostitutes do? Pickup strangers? You seem to have turned her into a $500 an hour call girl. Even if she did have a few regulars I doubt that that would have been enough for her to live on. If those regulars were poor working men of Whitechapel could they regularly afford her services? I doubt it.

"She was scared and cautious about the ripper."


"She was not as desperate financially or abodewise as the typical unfortunate."
I would have to believe that that applied to any woman conducting business on the street.

Have you seen the pictures of Miller's Court? She was also behind on her rent. If she was better off it was only relatively speaking.

"These are the men she knew at the time: and most of them have the motive and opportunity."

Maybe so but isn't it reasonable to assume that all of the other victims had men they knew at the time and who also had motive and opportunity? Why single out Mary in this respect?

I do agree that I think Mary knew her killer but that could also mean that he was someone she had met earlier that week or even that day.

c.d.

Hi CD

Not surprising since she was the only victim that had her own room.

there is no evidence Mary ever brought clients back to her room. a room she had recently shared with a boyfriend and let friends crash there. She also was not found murdered in an alley way either, like the others.

But isn't that exactly what prostitutes do? Pickup strangers? You seem to have turned her into a $500 an hour call girl. Even if she did have a few regulars I doubt that that would have been enough for her to live on. If those regulars were poor working men of Whitechapel could they regularly afford her services? I doubt it.

She wasn't a hardcore prostitute at all times. I'm afraid you seem to be adhereing to the rather inflexible mantra that once a prostitute always a prostitute. she hadn't been prostituting herself for some time as she was with Barnett.
and as such there was no "regularity" that "poor" working men had exhausted there resources for her services.
No she wasn't a 500$ call girl, nor was she the lowest of the unfortunates. probably somewhere in between.

she was young attractive and now available-I'm sure the first people she would go to if she was starting to prostitute herself again (and I don't even think she was on the night of her murder) was previous clients and men she knew.

I would have to believe that that applied to any woman conducting business on the street.

we have direct evidence that she was aware and cautious of the ripper-none so for the other victims. your making a sweeping statement here.

Have you seen the pictures of Miller's Court? She was also behind on her rent. If she was better off it was only relatively speaking.

Yes I have. its all relative-especially when compared to having to come up with doss money every night.

I do agree that I think Mary knew her killer but that could also mean that he was someone she had met earlier that week or even that day.

yes of course-entirely possible. but I would lean more toward earlier in the week to much earlier.

[Michael W Richards]

Well, it has been argued that JtR's MO was to attack his victims from behind, and that might explain the lack of defensive wounds or evidence that any of the C5 victims were given the opportunity to mount any kind of defence. Moreover, I seriously doubt that any of the victims perceived their killer as any kind of threat, until it was too late of course.

And where's the evidence that Kelly didn't use her room for purposes of solicitation?

On the contrary John, where is the evidence she did? She was sharing the room with Barnett since day one, he had only been gone a little over a week and Maria just moved out the Tuesday before the murder. You have 2 nights available for such activities...find some evidence then its sustainable as an argument.

You may argue MO and a rear attack, but the venue and the decorum are not consistent with strangers meeting. Which by the by is the evidence in the case of Polly and Annie both. As is the venue.

[John G]

Quite a few factors actually cd.....there are no indications of forced entry or entry gained without consent, which means she allowed the killer to enter her room...(a room which we have no records to indicate was ever used as her "entertainment" area for clients)...we have her in intimate clothing, again, in her own room....we see injuries inflicted on her that studies have shown usually occur in situations where the victim and killer know each other...ie facial slashing, disfigurement,....Mary was attacked while in bed, facing the partition wall, which indicates she felt comfortable turning her back to the killer. We have circumstantial evidence of a recent breakup and a love triangle of sorts. The heart being taken...possibly a sign of emotional context.

The venue, the mode of attire and the wounds suggest a known killer...known to Mary at least.

Well, it has been argued that JtR's MO was to attack his victims from behind, and that might explain the lack of defensive wounds or evidence that any of the C5 victims were given the opportunity to mount any kind of defence. Moreover, I seriously doubt that any of the victims perceived their killer as any kind of threat, until it was too late of course.

And where's the evidence that Kelly didn't use her room for purposes of solicitation?

[Michael W Richards]

"Based on the comment I highlighted above, which I agree with, it would seem to indicate that she was not like the previous victims in that there seems to be some personal connection between killer and victim. "

Hello Michael,

What do you base that on?

c.d.

Quite a few factors actually cd.....there are no indications of forced entry or entry gained without consent, which means she allowed the killer to enter her room...(a room which we have no records to indicate was ever used as her "entertainment" area for clients)...we have her in intimate clothing, again, in her own room....we see injuries inflicted on her that studies have shown usually occur in situations where the victim and killer know each other...ie facial slashing, disfigurement,....Mary was attacked while in bed, facing the partition wall, which indicates she felt comfortable turning her back to the killer. We have circumstantial evidence of a recent breakup and a love triangle of sorts. The heart being taken...possibly a sign of emotional context.

The venue, the mode of attire and the wounds suggest a known killer...known to Mary at least.

[Rosella]

And he would have been believed before a so-respectable property owning individual? Joe could have spoken to the newspapers about it. What good would that have done?

McCarthy would just have posed to reporters as a man who let the rent build up because he didn't want a throw a young woman out etc (no doubt he had dodgy documentation ready for the inquest) and of course a man who left owing a huge amount of rent would deny it wouldn't he, dah deh dah.

[Joshua Rogan]

I'm not sure that McCarthy could have lied about Mary's rent arrears at the inquest. Joe had only been gone a couple of weeks, hasn't he? Surely he would have said something if McCarthy had inflated the arrears dramatically.

[Rosella]

Mary may have known Jack by sight, but I have to confess that, unlike many on the forum, I do think that Hutch saw Mary with a well-dressed man that night (though he may well have exaggerated some of the clothing details.)

Instinctively feeling something wasn't right I do believe that he followed them and hung around for a long time in the hope the man would go and he could replace him for a couple of hours even if he was penniless.

I think Mary and Barnett had a system (if you can call it that) whereby any money they had left over after feeding and watering themselves (not water!) went towards the rent. They probably hadn't been paying full rent for a while before he left and it had accumulated. After he lost his job it became worse.

I do think when he had a few pennies to spare after he left Millers Court he would give them to Mary. (Of course if she hadn't eaten for a while or fancied a drink this money may not have ended up in the rent jar!)

[Rosella]

Sorry, I thought content was lost on my last post so I double posted!

[c.d.]

Hello Rosella,

Good points. Did the amount of the rent she owed come from Barnett?

I think she let her killer in and that she did know him but only superficially and that there was nothing personal in her killing.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Mary might have been the most attractive of McCarthy's tenants but the other prostitutes in the building couldn't have been that unattractive if they made their living that way. And as they say, any port in a storm.

c.d.

[Rosella]

Mary was almost certainly owing back rent, in view of her joblessness and the inability of Joe Barnett to help out. However, how do we know the rent had accumulated to the sum of 30 shillings? Because McCarthy said so? He would hardly have given receipts and where was Mary's rent book? It's unknown whether the police inspected McCarthy's books but they probably didn't.

In my view he vastly inflated the sum owing because he could then show the world that he was a good man, that he hadn't thown a young and attractive female out onto the streets with a homicidal lunatic about. If Mary had owed more than about ten shillings (a bit more than a couple of weeks rent and she had probably paid less than the full rent for a while) I would be surprised.

I'm with cd on this one. Mary was a bit more attractive than the other ripper victims we know of. However, there were thousands of prostitutes on the streets of London and hundreds (part time and otherwise) in Whitechapel/Spitalfields. We don't know that Mary was such a stunner that men were lining up or that she had a semi-permanent clientele at all, even if she did have her own room. If she was such a huge success why was she in financial distress?

I doubt that she knew her killer. I believe that Mary, in need of money for drink, food and backrent, went out that cold November night and fatefully met Mr Jack Ripper, who was secretly overjoyed to find she had a room of her own and accompanied her back there to thoroughly enjoy himself.