A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.

Lynns question to you Jon is again one that needs to be addressed....

Noted, thankyou.

Ive cited the facts about the possibility she brought clients into her room ever, which boil down to only a few nights past November 3rd,.. 2 of which we can account for... we know she wasnt out soliciting those nights.

I'm aware of that Michael. We do not have a sufficiently broad window of time which to make a reasonable judgement.

You can hardly insist she could never go out when witnesses saw her out, because then your argument must shift to dismissing any witnesses in order to substantiate your argument.

This is how destructive arguments work, when someone gets an idea in their head they must then set about to destroy any 'historically established' evidence which opposes their idea.

What you suggest about Mary bringing clients into her room amounts to a belief that she had only begun doing so within 2-3 days of her murder.

But Michael, I do not need to look for evidence that Kelly was out after 1:00 am, she was seen, the story is part of the historical record.
When all the silly theories have long since fallen by the wayside we will still be reading about what Hutchinson, Lewis & Kennedy saw that night.

Arguing that although Mary Kelly had a room, with a fire, and a bed, at her disposal, yet she chose to solicit out on the streets on a cold and wet night is illogical to say the least.
The obvious needs no justification, however to try claim the opposite needs every justification, no-one has come up with one yet.

Now, if you choose to take the position that Mary was not prostituting herself,.... good luck with that.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

O K

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Very well. In that case, bingo.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Blotchy was carrying a quart of ale, clearly Mrs Cox was familiar with that container, otherwise she would not have been able to state ''quart ''
According to her niece[ oral history] her aunt was waiting for her drunken partner to return home, he may have often brought one back.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

No...

Jon - I feel I must comment on your recent post. Sorry.

You can hardly insist she could never go out when witnesses saw her out, because then your argument must shift to dismissing any witnesses in order to substantiate your argument.

'Witnesses saw her out'. Witnesses said that they did, yes. Does that mean that they were a) correct or b) truthful?

I do not need to look for evidence that Kelly was out after 1:00 am, she was seen, the story is part of the historical record.
When all the silly theories have long since fallen by the wayside we will still be reading about what Hutchinson, Lewis & Kennedy saw that night.

No. The indisputable fact that one witness claimed to have seen Kelly after 1.00am does not make it a fact. Accordingly, that Kelly was out after 1.00am is not an ascertaine fact, and thus not part of the historical record. At all. There is a very real distinction.

Lewis saw a man and a woman pass by. If I am mistaken in that - if she in fact saw Kelly and Astrakhan man go into the Court, then perhaps you will direct me to where that is written.

Kennedy is a 'press' witness, who may not even have existed.

Do you think that just because there is a written record of a witness account it must be unimpeachable? In fact, historical enquiry demonstrates again and again that it is emphatically not the case. We really do have a problem if we must treat all accounts as having equal veracity, don't we? That means, for a start, that Kelly was alive and well the next day and we're all barking up the wrong tree. We must use our critical faculties in approaching the evidence, not just here, but in all historical enquiry if we are to make sense of it - Evidence is often (as here) contradictory.

Arguing that although Mary Kelly had a room, with a fire, and a bed, at her disposal, yet she chose to solicit out on the streets on a cold and wet night is illogical to say the least.
The obvious needs no justification, however to try claim the opposite needs every justification, no-one has come up with one yet.

Only illogical if one makes certain assumptions about Kelly as a prostitute. In reality, we don't know who Blotchy was - he may not have been a client. We don't know if Kelly brought clients back to her room at all. Considering how afraid women were of the Ripper at the time, one could just as easily argue that she wouldn't have taken casual clients back to her room with her given the risk.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Thanks. Yes, the police believed the story.

I see no reason to believe one story concocted (A-man) but not the other.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

My point in mentioning Galloways sighting is that it was made using Cox's description, the man believed the man he saw was a very close match. Granted, there could have been lots of Blotchy men about, but the fact that the one seen by Galloway is evasive when he notices he has been spotted does suggest he may have seen THE Blotchy.

Cheers Lynn

[GregBaron]

Blotchy the Ghost...

Hello Greg. Thanks. Good point. I had almost forgotten. One must check carefully whenever there is an amber coloured fluid present

Reminds one of the old adage, "Never eat yellow snow."

Cheers.
LC

Good one Lynn. Ah yes, Frank Zappa, the 70's, what a decade...

One wonders if our man Blotchy took his beer pot to remove evidence of his ghastly deed? I'm sure we discussed this before but isn't it true that a beer pot would have an identifying mark from its pub of origin?

If innocent, would one expect Blotchy to avoid the authorities?


Greg

[lynn cates]

blotchy

Hello Mike. Thanks. I would not have expected many "blotchy" people in East End as it was a result of over indulgence in food/drink.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

innocent

Hello Greg. Thanks. Yes, pubs often provided such pots. The local pubs were visited by the Met--no luck.

Would an innocent person avoid coming forward?

1. The innocent person may wish not to become involved, especially as a murder suspect.

2. The innocent person may not have read he were being sought.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Beleaguered Blotchy...

Hello Greg. Thanks. Yes, pubs often provided such pots. The local pubs were visited by the Met--no luck.

Darnit Lynn.

1. The innocent person may wish not to become involved, especially as a murder suspect.

True. But Hutchinson came forward, why not a belated Blotchy?

2. The innocent person may not have read he were being sought.

Also true. But word of mouth must have been running like wildfire....



Greg

[lynn cates]

innocent, or not . . .

Hello Greg. Thanks.

Yes, frustrating, isn't it?

"But Hutchinson came forward, why not a belated Blotchy?"

Well, seems it has to do with personality, experience, etc. Why does one innocent man run from the police and another stand and account?

"But word of mouth must have been running like wildfire."

Shh, don't tell John Kelly. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Jon - I feel I must comment on your recent post. Sorry.

Always a pleasure, my dear.

'Witnesses saw her out'. Witnesses said that they did, yes. Does that mean that they were a) correct or b) truthful?

An observation which applies to every witness, sworn or unsworn.

No. The indisputable fact that one witness claimed to have seen Kelly after 1.00am does not make it a fact.

I did not say anything was a fact. Are you building straw men so you can knock them down again?

Accordingly, that Kelly was out after 1.00am is not an ascertaine fact, and thus not part of the historical record. At all. There is a very real distinction.

The historical record consists of all contemporary statements given both in the court and in the press. The media's reporting of events is absolutely part of the historical record.
Modern criticism does not form part of the historical record.

Lewis saw a man and a woman pass by. If I am mistaken in that - if she in fact saw Kelly and Astrakhan man go into the Court, then perhaps you will direct me to where that is written.

Lewis saw a man & woman watched by a third man - you read that yourself.

Kennedy is a 'press' witness, who may not even have existed.

Says who?

Do you think that just because there is a written record of a witness account it must be unimpeachable?

Where did I say unimpeachable?

By all means, if you find anything objectionable about what Kennedy said, show it to be wrong, or even to be fair, show me where there is conflict with other statements, sworn or not.

Only illogical if one makes certain assumptions about Kelly as a prostitute. In reality, we don't know who Blotchy was - he may not have been a client. We don't know if Kelly brought clients back to her room at all. Considering how afraid women were of the Ripper at the time, one could just as easily argue that she wouldn't have taken casual clients back to her room with her given the risk.

Ok, she was out looking for laundry to wash - I'm good with that.

Regards, Jon S.

[celee]

I think Mary brought someone home around 3:30 in the morning and he killed her. Simple.

[Sally]

Jon -

An observation which applies to every witness, sworn or unsworn.

Of course. Which exactly why we ought to consider applying our critical faculty when assessing witness testimony; rather than taking it at face value; because, as we can see, due to the many inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in witness testimony, doing that leads us precisely nowhere.

I did not say anything was a fact. Are you building straw men so you can knock them down again?

I wasn't aware that I was in the habit of doing that. To what end? You said:

I do not need to look for evidence that Kelly was out after 1:00 am, she was seen

That does appear as though you are stating it as fact, Jon. I do apologise if I've misread you.

The historical record consists of all contemporary statements given both in the court and in the press. The media's reporting of events is absolutely part of the historical record.

Yes, that's right. However, the accuracy of that historical record cannot be taken at face value. No historian does that (actually, scrap that, there were some students who did when I was an undergraduate, but that's to be expected) Contemporary statements ate just that - statements. They may be wholly accurate, partly accurate, or not at all accurate. They do not demonstrate fact, only reported experience.

Modern criticism does not form part of the historical record.

No, you're quite wrong there. Of course modern criticism forms part of the historic record. It is an historic record in its own right. It tells us what people thought about the past in their own time.

Ok, she was out looking for laundry to wash - I'm good with that.

Actually, we don't know what she was doing, do we? We make assumptions. Our common assumption is that she was prostituting herself and Blotchy was a random client. I think that there are alternative views, based on the evidence. Did anybody suggest that she was out looking for laundry?

If, that is, she was out at all after she was seen with Blotchy.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Thanks. I would not have expected many "blotchy" people in East End as it was a result of over indulgence in food/drink.

Cheers.
LC

Agreed, but Galloway stated he was so taken that this man matched the description given by Ms Cox, you have to wonder if it was a combination of the mans looks and actions or behaviors that helped him make the connection.

Cheers Lynn

[Michael W Richards]

Sally makes a great point...and one we should all remember.

There have been lots of additions to our knowledge of the crimes based on previously unknown evidence and new perspectives on the issues, and lots of issues can now be set aside forever, due to the same research and discussion. A great example being Ostrogs whereabouts during the murders. We can now say that Ostrog was incarcerated at the time, and that historical position that he was a primary suspect was hogwash.

We have to examine the facts and the evidence and for the most part set aside who thought what about what at that time. If the story created by examination of all the known factual data does not answer the questions most relevant to each case, then we have to find out why.

Liz Stride does not match the signature of a serial mutilators victim. So why was she included? Geographical data? Assumptives?

Just because someone said that these 5 women were likely killed by one crazed individual doesnt make it historical fact....it means their opinions are recorded historically, not that their conclusions were accurate.

Cheers all.