A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[lynn cates]

hear ye, hear ye

Hello Jon.

"Of course the man is going to uphold her dignity when the whole world (figuratively speaking) is watching."

Makes sense to me. In fact, it makes one wonder why he even let it be know that she had been a prostitute at all.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

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.

That's not the case though is it, Prater spoke to the press alright on the 10th, but she told them she heard nothing through the night, skirting the intent of the rule.
Whereas, Kennedy told the whole story. All I'm saying here is you are not comparing apples with apples.

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!

Was he even asked about Lewis?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is actually nothing strange about a press article only reporting on answers to questions asked.

Take a look at Kozebrodski's story to the press:
"I went to look for a policeman....."
"I took the direction towards Grove-street ...."

There's no mention of Diemschitz, Kozebrodski's account reads like he was alone.

The same is noticeable when Diemschitz tells the same story:
"I ran off at once for the police...
I could not find a constable...
I shouted out "Police!" as loudly as I could....
A man whom I met in Grove- street returned with me..."

Anyone reading these accounts would swear these men were alone. In fact some may have chosen to label one a liar because his story 'parroted' the other (sound familiar?).
Except, that Spooner tells us that two men came running towards him, both shounting "murder", "police", and they both ran as far as Grove St., then turned back.

See how easy it is to get the wrong idea, if there are not enough 'Spooners' in the world?

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".

Ah, you must have a different copy of the Daily Telegraph than everyone else, Lewis makes no reference to Dorset St. in fact the context is "looking up the court":
"The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman..."

Further on "up the court", nothing to do with Dorset St.

Due to these inquest testimonies being conflated, when each comment was separated by another question, it is easy to get the wrong impression.
The press often publish these accounts as if they were continuous statements, they were not.
The Coroner then would ask, where did this couple go? - to which the response would be that Lewis could not say, "there was no one in the court".

As for the Star, nobody but you has suggested that they invented...

Their past record for "inventing" details is already established.
One point was not replacing the other, you may take it as two separate points.

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.

No, we've already reported on what was clear.

And those same witnesses - conveniently for my dastardly "theories" - just happen to have been discredited by the police at the time.

More unsupported claims?
You're ancestors didn't happen to work for the Star, did they Ben?

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.

The intention of the police to 'gag' witnesses is to stop the spread of potentially critical evidence, which includes speaking to everybody, not just the press. Prater, talked a little, but not of the details which concerned the police.

Indeed. They were comparing testimony to determine which of it was worth including in the inquest, .....

No they don't.
The police gather as many statements as they can. And, investigate as many as they are able.
It is the Coroner who, after reading all statements, chooses which witness he wants to speak to, and Macdonald kept his witness selection to a minimum when compared to Baxter.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

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.

This is in response to both of your responses. It seems you haven't read my posts well enough to put together my logical answer. In my scenario, the killer hadn't killed indoors before because he was opportunistic, taking what was available. When Kelly brought him to her room, he was presented with a new opportunity. It's absolute simplicity.

Mike

[Michael W Richards]

This is in response to both of your responses. It seems you haven't read my posts well enough to put together my logical answer. In my scenario, the killer hadn't killed indoors before because he was opportunistic, taking what was available. When Kelly brought him to her room, he was presented with a new opportunity. It's absolute simplicity.

Mike

Ahh, I see. Well then I guess youve solved the case to your own satisfaction,... so, for you, Mary Kelly was killed by Blotchy Man. Since he is the ONLY man that legitimate witnesses ever stated they saw Mary enter her room with aside from Barnett perhaps, youve narrowed it down to that one man. Or another premise is that without any pressing urgency concerning her financial welfare at that time, she is after all fed and watered without any appropriate funds that we know of..and she does have a bed, arrears or not....Mary decides in her drunken state to go out into the rain and trying earning some money which she cannot spend after 1:30am. Seems logical to you, does it?

If you take into account the witnesses that were warned about their statements and ones that had their statements "discredited", then I guess you could make a loose case around that supposition.

Id prefer to use the witnesses that lived in the court or in 26 Dorset myself, since they are the only ones I can be safely confident that actually knew Mary to some degree.

All the best Mike, thanks for the explanation.

[The Good Michael]

Ahh, I see. Well then I guess youve solved the case to your own satisfaction,... so, for you, Mary Kelly was killed by Blotchy Man. Since he is the ONLY man that legitimate witnesses ever stated they saw Mary enter her room with aside from Barnett perhaps, youve narrowed it down to that one man. Or another premise is that without any pressing urgency concerning her financial welfare at that time, she is after all fed and watered without any appropriate funds that we know of..and she does have a bed, arrears or not....Mary decides in her drunken state to go out into the rain and trying earning some money which she cannot spend after 1:30am. Seems logical to you, does it?

If you take into account the witnesses that were warned about their statements and ones that had their statements "discredited", then I guess you could make a loose case around that supposition.

Id prefer to use the witnesses that lived in the court or in 26 Dorset myself, since they are the only ones I can be safely confident that actually knew Mary to some degree.

All the best Mike, thanks for the explanation.

I have no idea what you're going on about. It all started with me stating that it is logical for prostitutes to bring men home on occasion providing they have one. Blotchy and witnesses and lack of money urgency...I said nothing about such things.

Cheers,

Mike

[Bridewell]

Discredited Witness

I keep reading that George Hutchinson was a "discredited witness", but no-one has detailed the evidence which discredits him. What we do have is the following, from Abberline:

"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion that his statement is true".

Abberline's words, in his own hand, on an official document - notes taken at the time. How and why is Hutchinson discredited? What evidence, of equivalent stature to the above, exists which discredits him? Speculation based upon contemporary press reports doesn't cut the mustard; nor does the argument which insists that he cannot have seen what he claims to have done under the prevailing lighting conditions - Abberline was as familiar with those conditions as any man alive at the time, and he placed on record his opinion, formed after interrogation, that Hutchinson was truthful. If there is evidence that Hutchinson was discredited, please can someone publish it; if there is only opinion, please can it be acknowledged to be such.

Many thanks.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Bridewell,
Would it come to a surprise to anyone , that I agree one-hundred -percent.
Over the years we have[ as I have mentioned countless times] persecuted the man Hutchinson, and tarred him with all kinds of foul deeds.
He was ''interrogated'' by Abberline, and he believed the man, and as Bridewell said, the sighting in darkness was not considered abnormal, and the inspector was not stupid.
I have been on this site since before the millennium , and we are still disputing statements made to the police as suspicious, instead of attempting to make sense of what we have.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

not what I really want

Hello Michael.

"In my scenario, the killer hadn't killed indoors before because he was opportunistic, taking what was available. When Kelly brought him to her room, he was presented with a new opportunity. It's absolute simplicity."

Very well. Then an indoor massacre is not what he wanted all along.

I can live with that.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I keep reading that George Hutchinson was a "discredited witness", but no-one has detailed the evidence which discredits him. What we do have is the following, from Abberline:

"An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him this evening and I am of the opinion that his statement is true".

Abberline's words, in his own hand, on an official document - notes taken at the time. How and why is Hutchinson discredited? What evidence, of equivalent stature to the above, exists which discredits him? Speculation based upon contemporary press reports doesn't cut the mustard; nor does the argument which insists that he cannot have seen what he claims to have done under the prevailing lighting conditions - Abberline was as familiar with those conditions as any man alive at the time, and he placed on record his opinion, formed after interrogation, that Hutchinson was truthful. If there is evidence that Hutchinson was discredited, please can someone publish it; if there is only opinion, please can it be acknowledged to be such.

Many thanks.

And many thanks to you Colin. Sober sensible sentiments are what that old Hutchinson debate was short of.

Why some choose to wave The Star around as some kind of trustworthy source is the subject of continuing amusement.

One contemporary detractor of this New Journalism, E.T. Raymond, described the use of "questionable journalistic practices", and that the Star was "half a joke and half a crusade".
Ref: Papers for the Millions: The New Journalism in Britain, 1850s to 1914, Ed. Weiner, 1988.

It was only the Star who chose to use the word "discredit". The Echo, being less controversial and more accurate simply described Hutchinson's statement as now of reduced importance, which, considering what we have learned about the unpublished medical opinion is a reasonable position to take.

And, as you rightly point out, we have no comment from the police which retracts Abberline's initial opinion. There is no indication the police lost faith in his statement, only that the police (the Met.) had been "induced" to follow a different line of inquiry.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Bridewell,
Would it come to a surprise to anyone , that I agree one-hundred -percent.
Over the years we have[ as I have mentioned countless times] persecuted the man Hutchinson, and tarred him with all kinds of foul deeds.
He was ''interrogated'' by Abberline, and he believed the man, and as Bridewell said, the sighting in darkness was not considered abnormal, and the inspector was not stupid.
I have been on this site since before the millennium , and we are still disputing statements made to the police as suspicious, instead of attempting to make sense of what we have.
Regards Richard.

Hello Richard.
We can only hope this strained line of inquiry has fizzled out. Sadly, there will always be the 'odd' cinder in the ashes who will try to keep the flame burning.
Hutchinson as a suspect has a very limited appeal, its not that he couldn't have been involved, but its the quality of the arguments used to incriminate him where this whole modern case against him collapses.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

What I did Michael is put what you said you believed in terms that fall within the realm of accepted evidence. Ergo, if you believe she brought a man home with her, you have only Blotchy to use as your man. Cox lived in the court, knew Mary and spoke with her..the last person we can say did that.... and she described him, all the while admitting that she was herself out soliciting that night. I dont think it gets better than that. Self incrimination with the account, at least on moral if not legal grounds, is a pretty powerful combination when the witness has nothing personally at stake when giving her statement.

As to the Hutchinson element, I realize that it cannot be agreed upon by both sides now, so Im not going to bother getting into the rhetoric. Ill just say that I can see easily why Abberline was taken in by the description of the suspect by GH, I can see no good reason for waiting 4 days to give that statement, on the basis of the delay I question whether GH actually knew Mary or had simply seen her around, and I cannot believe the detail that the description contains, certainly not from that distance, at that time of night and with the available light. There are no courtyard witnesses that heard Mary leave after midnight, and none that heard or saw Mary arrive again later with company. I wonder why everyone was now so silent... when Mary arrived earlier she sang for over an hour. The only sound that is not recorded as being from the courtyard witnesses was a cry at around 3:45, likely Mary since she is the only woman that couldnt speak for herself that Friday afternoon. No sounds followed the scream..which erodes the attack commencement assumed linkage.

So, when its reported that same week that the "witness was discredited", the only thing left that makes me curious about him is why he would do this.

The crux of the thread case is was he a stranger to Mary or not..I havent seen any evidence that I know was accepted as valid that makes the case for a Stranger.

Best regards

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael.

"In my scenario, the killer hadn't killed indoors before because he was opportunistic, taking what was available. When Kelly brought him to her room, he was presented with a new opportunity. It's absolute simplicity."

Very well. Then an indoor massacre is not what he wanted all along.

I can live with that.

This is what I think...at this time. I don't believe he knew what he wanted exactly and improvised each time.

Mike