A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Wickerman]

Isn't Barnett in the same boat as John Kelly regarding his post murder comments concerning Mary Kelly? Is he likely to admit that Mary Kelly was soliciting during the time when they were living as a couple? He's viewed the poor mutilated corpse of his former partner, is he really going to put her in the gutter as a low prostitute? Wouldn't it help Joe Barnetts reputation in this whole unfortunate affair if he came over as a man who tried to keep Mary Kelly off the streets? In short this was what he was hinting at.

Regards

Observer

I wouldn't expect either of them to talk negatively about their recently departed partner. Also, neither would I expect either woman (Kate/MJK) was dominated by the man (Kelly/Barnett), or would refrain from a little 'easy money' if the need arose.
Of course the man is going to uphold her dignity when the whole world (figuratively speaking) is watching.
Its their friends & neighbors who may be able to tell a more accurate tale, and of course, this will inevitably involve press interviews.

Regards, Jon S.

[Observer]

Isn't Barnett in the same boat as John Kelly regarding his post murder comments concerning Mary Kelly? Is he likely to admit that Mary Kelly was soliciting during the time when they were living as a couple? He's viewed the poor mutilated corpse of his former partner, is he really going to put her in the gutter as a low prostitute? Wouldn't it help Joe Barnetts reputation in this whole unfortunate affair if he came over as a man who tried to keep Mary Kelly off the streets? In short this was what he was hinting at.

Regards

Observer

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Lynn.
If I understand you correctly, both situations are true. Yes, she had been at it a while, she had a reputation before she met Barnett, but he tried to keep her 'clean'.

Mrs Phoenix told us:
"About two years ago she left Breezers-hill and removed to Commercial-road, from which quarter she had been reported to Mrs. Phœnix as leading an immoral life in the vicinity of Aldgate."

Mrs Harvey, on her last meeting with MJK, told us:
"After drinking together they parted at half past seven o'clock, Kelly going off in the direction of Leman street, which she was in the habit of frequenting."

For what, we don't know.
Notice the present tense, not that she had been in the habit of frequenting.
We can't be certain of course, but Barnett did not like her going on the streets, that much is known. Not that he forbade it, but that he objected. Which could easily mean she still had not abandoned the life altogether. Perhaps she had to go further afield because of Barnett?

Julia Vanturney told us:
"I knew Kelly, and also Joe Barnet. They seemed to live fairly happily together. She used frequently to get drunk. Barnet used to object to her going on the streets."

We also learn:
"She was in the habit of going nightly to a publichouse at Fish-street-hill; but Sergeant Bradshaw, on making inquiry at the house in question, found that she had not been there for upwards of a month past."

This was while she lived with Barnett, a month past is only early October, and then there's her visits south of the river:
"She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend."

So, while we cannot say with any certainty that she was still soliciting, circumstantially, according to Venturney, it is a possibility. Then, on top of this, we are totally in the dark about those visits to a pub in Fish-street Hill, and south across the river to the E & C.

Why does Barnett have to be lying?

I get the impression that the only way some members can stir up intrigue is to suggest a witness was lying. Years ago there was hardly ever a mention of this, now it spreads like a plague.

Regards, Jon S.

Since when has anyone debated that Mary must have at some time "gone out on the streets" Jon? Her live-in stated it, as you posted. Which has no bearing on her rooms usage when he lived there and after he left.

Best regards

[Observer]

I get the impression that the only way some members can stir up intrigue is to suggest a witness was lying. Years ago there was hardly ever a mention of this, now it spreads like a plague.

Regards, Jon S.

Either that or quoting newspaper accounts as though they were written in stone. I'm thinking of John Kelly's interview which appeared in Echo by the way.

Regards

Observer

[Michael W Richards]

and I see no reason to believe he wasn't a stranger either. There is nothing either way one looks at it. I would say that the murderer most likely wasn't a former client. Either a stranger or someone who saw her about, but wasn't a real acquaintance. That's about it.

Mike

Which means you have an explanation how a total stranger entered her room without her permission, without waking her, without an alarmed cry that is then followed by sounds of scuffling...with 2 locked windows, and a door likely locked by a spring latch set to "off".

Really...its so easy to state a position and yet so difficult to explain how in the hell the idea actually works in real life, aint it Mike?

There are only a few logical answers and youre avoidance of them is interesting... but not an argument.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

Barnett

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Why does Barnett have to be lying?"

Where on earth did you get this? I am merely trying to reconcile disparate statements, that's all. Barnett seems to say that she did not work as a prostitute while they were together. The stories involve, as you say, the pre-Barnett era.

"I get the impression that the only way some members can stir up intrigue is to suggest a witness was lying. Years ago there was hardly ever a mention of this, now it spreads like a plague."

Intrigue? Surely not. Especially in such a transparent case as this.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Just a small thing here: Because a name wasn't mentioned doesn't mean anything. To dispute the idea of Kelly bringing clients to her room now and then because there are no records is a disservice to logic. She was a prostitute to be sure, and not a halfhearted one. There can be no reasonable doubt that she brought men to her room at least on occasion. The people in the Court knew she was a prostitute and so did her boyfriend. It was no secret. Having a room presented her with options that the others didn't have. It also presented the killer with options he didn't have before.

Mike

Hi Michael,

I beg to differ on the above Mike, without any evidence to validate the idea that Mary Kelly specifically brought men into her own room for solicitation purposes the suggestion itself is purely speculative, and frankly illogical, based on the premise that Mary would have only been able to do so since Barnett left, and perhaps Maria, on the 3rd. I dont care to assume Mary brought men into the court.. considering that we have no evidence she did and the brief time she would have been able to do so.

The "options" her room presented her, being in her name, included not having to work that night to pay current or past rent arrears, a room with a fireplace and a place to bring someone for a song after a night of pubbing.

And Lynns point to you with respect to the room offering options to the killer is very valid....since when didnt the killer have women to kill indoors?

Best regards GM

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. I may have missed something, but all this talk about "area" "patch" etc. indicates that "MJK" had been at it awhile. And yet Barnett seems to claim that she was "clean" while he was there.

Hi Lynn.
If I understand you correctly, both situations are true. Yes, she had been at it a while, she had a reputation before she met Barnett, but he tried to keep her 'clean'.

Mrs Phoenix told us:
"About two years ago she left Breezers-hill and removed to Commercial-road, from which quarter she had been reported to Mrs. Phœnix as leading an immoral life in the vicinity of Aldgate."

Mrs Harvey, on her last meeting with MJK, told us:
"After drinking together they parted at half past seven o'clock, Kelly going off in the direction of Leman street, which she was in the habit of frequenting."

For what, we don't know.
Notice the present tense, not that she had been in the habit of frequenting.
We can't be certain of course, but Barnett did not like her going on the streets, that much is known. Not that he forbade it, but that he objected. Which could easily mean she still had not abandoned the life altogether. Perhaps she had to go further afield because of Barnett?

Julia Vanturney told us:
"I knew Kelly, and also Joe Barnet. They seemed to live fairly happily together. She used frequently to get drunk. Barnet used to object to her going on the streets."

We also learn:
"She was in the habit of going nightly to a publichouse at Fish-street-hill; but Sergeant Bradshaw, on making inquiry at the house in question, found that she had not been there for upwards of a month past."

This was while she lived with Barnett, a month past is only early October, and then there's her visits south of the river:
"She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend."

So, while we cannot say with any certainty that she was still soliciting, circumstantially, according to Venturney, it is a possibility. Then, on top of this, we are totally in the dark about those visits to a pub in Fish-street Hill, and south across the river to the E & C.

Why does Barnett have to be lying?

I get the impression that the only way some members can stir up intrigue is to suggest a witness was lying. Years ago there was hardly ever a mention of this, now it spreads like a plague.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

Isn't necessary to provide "proof" that Hutchinson was lying in order to demonstrate the strong likelihood that he was. Other discredited witnesses, such as Matthew Packer and Emmanuel Violenia, weren't "proved" to have been lying either, but that didn't lessen the very strong probability that they were, and it certainly didn't make them any less discredited by the police at the time.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

The only police document I've encountered which comments on the credibility of Hutchinson is Abberline's, dated 12th November 1888 which reads, in part:

"I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion his statement is true".

Where will I find the document, by someone of similar stature, which contradicts this?

[Observer]

Observer,
I don't believe Lynn's question was a sincere one. I think it is connected to the concept that Kelly's murderer knew her. If i am incorrect Lynn will correct me I am sure.

Mike

Just seen Mr Cates reply Mike. I think he'll find that time, and location factors determined why Polly Nichols et al did not end up looking like poor Mary Kelly.

Discreet surveillance most probably, of the type used by other serial killers who targetted strangers in their homes - Bundy, Rader, Napper etc. The equally plausible alternative is that the killer was mildly acquainted with Kelly, and in terms of prostitute serial killers, there would be nothing unusual about that. Arthur Shawcross was known casually by some of his victims as a regular client, and Stephen Wright was known to many of the local Ipswitch prostitutes in his hunting ground.

Hi Ben

Not unreasonable. A much better bet than those dasdardly Sinn Fein rotters.

Regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

suggestive

Hello Jon. I may have missed something, but all this talk about "area" "patch" etc. indicates that "MJK" had been at it awhile. And yet Barnett seems to claim that she was "clean" while he was there.

Are you suggesting:

1. Barnett lied?

2. Barnett was mistaken?

3. The time she did this was AFTER Joe left?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

holding back

Hello Michael. Thanks.

I was wishing to know why "MJK's" killer, given that he wanted to do certain things, had not done it before?

I have seen many posters who claim that Miller's Court was what "Jack" had wanted all along. Now he had the opportunity to do as he wished. I am not clear what was holding him back before. Surely not the law?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

"Landlords tend to accept the fact that when you evict the tenant you are kissing the debt goodbye. But so long as you keep them on the chance remains you will always recover something."

But it is also true that evicting a tenant in arrears could make other tenants who are in arrears and who claim they have no money suddenly find some.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

We are in no position to second guess why Macdonald only called a dozen witnesses in such an important case as this. Compare Macdonald's short list and single sitting with Wynne Baxter's long list of witnesses and over several days

Compare Wynne Baxter's unconvincing, inappropriate personal theorizing with MacDonald's matter-of-fact presentation of the evidence...if we're considering it a fruitful exercise to compare coroners. For the record, I never once suggested that we should "second guess why Macdonald only called a dozen witnesses". I suggested that we are in a position to go through precisely why he did not call one particular witness, "Mrs. Kennedy", and it is certainly not because the spoke to the press. Other witnesses did precisely that, including Elizabath Prater, and they were still called to the inquest - evidently because they weren't exposed as plagiarizers of other peoples' eyewitness accounts, as Kennedy was.

Well once again my friend I can demonstrate the errors of your thinking. If this presumption of yours was correct then Maurice Lewis would have been called in support of Mrs Maxwell, but as we all know, he was not.

Most probably because his evidence was drastically undermined by the revelation that no pubs had recalled seeing Kelly or serving her alcohol on the night of her death, if memory serves. His evidence only supports Maxwell inasmuch as it indicates a later time of death than that provided by other witnesses. There is nowhere near the astonishing, highly suspicious degree of detail that we find between the Kennedy and Lewis accounts. Had there been any consideration that these two were two separate accounts from two separate woman - and the concept is truly risible in its improbability - police and coroner would have jumped at the chance to establish a sequence of events that was cemented by two witnesses who corroborate each other in virtually every particular.

Need I go on...?

No, I think you've wasted enough time already making a "case" that was so easily refuted.

Sarah Lewis saw the loiterer standing watching a couple pass up the court, this was important because of the time, 2:30 am.

NO, SHE DID NOT.

You are factually in error.

It has been explained to you enough times now that your above assertion regarding Lewis is horribly, horribly wrong - provably so. I can now only assume you have some antagonistic motive in repeating it again.

Sarah Lewis did NOT see a couple pass up the court. This is made clear in her police statement and every single press report of her inquest evidence with the sad and sorry exception of that bottom-wipingly ludicrous piece of nonsense from the Daily News.

Mrs Kennedy only saw "Kelly"? outside the Britannia "about 3:00 am", with no-one. Yes there was a couple nearby, but she does not say they were so close as to be regarded as "together". Kelly was apparently alone.
The evidence of Sarah Lewis has more potential because of her seeing the loiterer in the vicinity of the murder scene.

No.

Most assuredly not.

It is quite clear that the loiterer was of relatively minor interest both to Lewis herself and those who read her evidence. Lewis spoke at far greater length about the man with a black bad who accosted her and a friend on Wednesday, and who might also have been the man talking to a woman outside the Britannia on the morning of the murder. The loiterer obviously had nothing to do with the inquest's use of Lewis and non-use of Kennedy, and it remains equally obvious that the latter would have been called to the inquest had her alleged sighting of Kelly at 3.00am been believed.

This extract is not from Mrs Kennedy, the reporter appears to have spoken directly with Mr Gallagher..
"... Immediately opposite the house in which Mary Jane Kelly was murdered is a tenement occupied by an Irishman, named Gallagher, and his family. On Thursday night Gallagher and his wife retired to rest at a fairly early hour. Their married daughter, a woman named Mrs. Kennedy, came home, however, at a late hour..."

No.

Think about it.

The interview was with Mrs. Kennedy, and she could easily have relayed the detail that Gallagher was an Irishman who lived opposite Kelly's room and "retired to rest at an early hour". Of course, if the police did interview "Gallagher", it would be rather odd that he mentioned Kennedy arriving at a "late hour" whilst conspicuously omitting any reference to Lewis who also arrived a late hour, making at least four people attempting to sleep in a cramped room the same size as Kelly's!

Not that I'm complaining, just to remind you that if this debate does not suit you... just let it go.

It's suits me down to the ground, thanks. I just wondered if we perhaps ought to accede to Michael's sensible suggestion to steer the thread back on course. But if you're hell bent on more repetition, terrific! I'll be here until the pages number in their thousands if necessary. I'll "just let it go" when you do, and not a moment before.

And, just to remind you, the couple you mention above seen by Lewis, those being watched by this loiterer, are not specified to be in Dorset St. in any press article, that is your invention.

Yes, they are.

I just provided a quote from the Daily Telegraph that establishes as much very clearly indeed. Lewis described the loitering man as being on Dorset Street, and she then describes the other couple as being "further on". In other words, further along Dorset Street from the loitering man.

As for the Star, nobody but you has suggested that they invented the detail that several woman plagiarized a genuine account. For what possible reason would they do so? This is a brand new idea, conjured up for the first time by you a few days ago, and only because you realised that your earlier defense of "Mrs. Kennedy" - on grounds which relied on the report being accurate - wasn't very convincing. It's simple shifting of goalposts.

The justification is Hutchinson's own words to the police... for goodness sakes.
"...They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."

No.

This does not "justify" your championing of one factually erroneous press statement which contradicts all other press reports as well as Lewis' police report. Even if Hutchinson did approach the court as he claimed in the press (not in his police report), it is quite clear that Sarah Lewis ONLY saw him when he was standing opposite the court on the other side of Dorset Street.

Every witness that disagrees with you, you brand a liar!

And those same witnesses - conveniently for my dastardly "theories" - just happen to have been discredited by the police at the time. If that's having my cake and eating it, the cake's beginning to taste rather good.

And now, you go so far as to add Sarah Lewis to your "liars club". You do agree she honoured a request by the police to say nothing?, yet you now make her a liar by suggesting she told Mrs Kennedy, why?, its your way of trying to uphold your crumbling theory.

No, there is a colossal misunderstanding here. I never suggested that Sarah Lewis lied about anything. I said she honoured her agreement not to speak to the press. I never said she was prohibited by the police from talking to friends and possibly family about her experience. If you're going to accuse a theory of "crumbling", at least make an effort to understand what the theory actually is.

Ok, I see, "you cannot say anything to the press Mrs Lewis, but by all means tell anyone you choose, friends, neighbours, relatives...", uncle Tom Cobley and all!

Um, well yes, because the press are obviously better equipped than the Uncle Tom Cobleys of this world to publish and distribute information. This should be astoundingly obvious.

Yes, she could have fallen asleep, but there's no "reliable, non-discredited, taken-seriously evidence" (your words), to be sure either way. And, falling asleep in a cold room with no fire (no light?) - not likely

If that's what you really think, I'm afraid you have nary a clue about the behaviour of intoxicated people. If a person consumes enough booze, s/he is perfectly capable of falling asleep outdoors in frigid conditions, let alone a small room warmed by a fire. Knock back a few and find out for yourself.

The authorities were not comparing inquest testimony to statements made in the press

Indeed. They were comparing testimony to determine which of it was worth including in the inquest, which of it was probable fabrication, which of it was contradicted by other evidence, which of it was parroted and passed off Kennedy-style etc etc. Anyway, I'm not talking about press witnesses in general. I'm talking specifically about ONE witness, "Mrs. Kennedy" and the reason SHE was discredited. But seriously, if you can't see how obvious it is that police statements and inquest evidence should be treated as more reliable than press extracts, there's just no helping you.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Bridewell,

It would be great if someone who doesn't support said notion would provide the proof that Hutchinson was lying because, according to him, quite unequivocally, MJK was soliciting.

Isn't necessary to provide "proof" that Hutchinson was lying in order to demonstrate the strong likelihood that he was. Other discredited witnesses, such as Matthew Packer and Emmanuel Violenia, weren't "proved" to have been lying either, but that didn't lessen the very strong probability that they were, and it certainly didn't make them any less discredited by the police at the time.

All the best,
Ben