A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[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.

[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.

[lynn cates]

O K

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Very well. In that case, bingo.

Cheers.
LC

[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.

[Wickerman]

Why must he be a client and not a friend?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

I'm not insisting he was a client 'specifically', thats the traditional role for this character, whoever he was.
The question remains the same, does anyone really care what Kelly's companion looked like, as far as his existence goes?

Even if Hutch had not described him in any way, but only said Mary walked up the court with a man.
That this incident was witnessed by Lewis, she saw a man watching a man & woman pass up the court, confirms his existence at that time in that place.
That is all I am saying.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Lynns question to you Jon is again one that needs to be addressed....why do we need to believe that the man accompanying Mary, seen by Mary Ann, was a client?

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.

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. Based on what evidence? Since we have zero testimony from anyone that Mary knew that she brought any clients to her room after Barnett left on Oct31 or after Maria left on Nov 3rd.

We also know she wasnt out soliciting that last night. She was drinking in a pub.

Seems to me that you are missing a critical element of the Mary Kelly profile here.....she doesnt care about arrears. She has been evicted before for the same thing. She owed over 2 weeks back rent and on Thursday night before Mayors Day, virtually the beginning of a 3 day weekend when people would be out and about, she doesnt work...she drinks. Most probably on Blotchy's nickel.

Mary isnt your desperate middle aged homeless whore, she has been in at least 3 brothels since being in London and had fancy dresses to boot. The room is in her name and she has been allowed to stay while in arrears. This woman is playing her youth and beauty card for all its worth.

You need some evidence to take a stand like Mary soliciting that last night......and arriving home staggering drunk with someone before midnight then singing for over an hour isnt evidence of copulation.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

parity

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

[lynn cates]

friendless?

Hello Jon. Thanks. That helps.

"Do we really care what Kelly's client looked like?"

Well, for identification purposes . . .

Why must he be a client and not a friend?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

pithy remark

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

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

To Lynn,

You know that I agree with you on the descriptions of both Blotchy and Astrakan Man, and I know you've mentioned Simon has somehow verified that Astrakan could not have been Millen because he wasnt in London at the time, but I dont believe Blotchy is a work of fiction at all.

A Mr Galloway stated to the police and press that on the Wednesday of that week he saw a man that matched the Cox description, and that the man acted aggressive towards a woman and also acted evasively.

The Star, Nov 16th;

" Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City, and living at Stepney, has made the following statement :- "As I was going down the Whitechapel-road in the early hours of Wednesday morning, on my way home, I saw a man coming in the opposite direction, about fifty yards away. We both crossed the road simultaneously, and came face to face. The man had a very frightened appearance, and glared at me as he passed. I was very much struck with his appearance, especially as he corresponded, in almost every particular, with the man described by Mary Ann Cox. He was short, stout, about 35 to 40 years of age. His moustache, not a particularly heavy one, was of A CARROTY COLOR, AND HIS FACE BLOTCHY through drink and dissipation. He wore a long, dirty brown overcoat, and altogether presented a most villainous appearance. I stood still and watched him. He darted back almost immediately to the other side of the road, and then, apparently to avoid a group of women a little further on, crossed the road again. I determined to follow him, and just before reaching the coffee-stall past the church he again crossed the road. On nearing George-yard he crossed over and entered a small court. He reappeared in a couple of minutes, crossed Whitechapel-road for the sixth time, and proceeded up Commercial-street. Up to this time he had walked along briskly, but directly he got into Commercial-street, he slackened speed and ACCOSTED THE FIRST WOMAN whom he met alone, but was repulsed.

On approaching Thrawl-street a policeman on point duty suddenly appeared. The man was evidently startled, and for a moment it looked as though he would turn back or cross the road. He recovered himself, however, and went on. I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."

This article confirms that on the 14th Hutchinsons suspect was still assumed to be the one they were looking for. By the weeks end it was Cox's.

My best regards Lynn

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

I don't back that notion. I simply accept it as a possibility.

Why should we expect another sound? Nothing at all was heard from Nichols by Mrs Green & Mrs Purkis who lived nearby. Cadosch heard nothing after the woman's voice saying 'No' and he was both wide awake and separated from the scene only by a wooden fence. Nothing was heard from Stride after she called out to Israel Schwartz and nothing was heard from Eddowes by City P.c. Richard Pearce who lived at 3, Mitre Square. No further noise from Kelly is unremarkable surely in the circumstances?

Hi Bridewell,

Heres what I think about the above points.....it seems to be supportable within the medical testimony that both Polly and Annie were choked or strangled before a cut was made,... what Im suggesting is that Mary was cut, not strangled, (there is no evidence that suggests she was), and she would have struggled with her assailant while she could..hence, defensive wounds on her hands and arms and bed and floorboard squeaks at the very least. Mrs P, listening for further noises within the same house, hears none.

Israel Schwartz's statement to the police includes an exclamation from Liz Stride while being assaulted, unfortunately, no-one else hears or sees anything of the sort...including seeing or hearing Israel there.
He is a completely unsubstantiated witness, therefore, to be taken with great caution. Particularly since his statement virtually exonerates the club he likely is a member of and it places the murderer off premises. And a probable anti-Semite.

PC Pearce may or may not have heard something and he may or may not have had his wife and child with him at that point in time, all we know is that he said he didnt. Like PC Harvey said he went down Church Passage that night and looked into the square....coincidentally, at about the same time the murder was finishing,..and he saw nothing.

We know 2 witnesses from disparate locations in or adjacent to the court heard the same cry out at approximately the same time, there is corroboration. We also know that neither heard any further noises. Again, since there is no need to assume the women discussed this matter beforehand and since we have no need to disparage their character or good intentions, we have corroboration.

Its not about what a witness says, its about the implications of the statement, how much sense it makes and how likely it is that they are telling their story authentically. Witnesses statements from George Hutchinson and Israel Schwartz cannot have any meaningful impact on the respective investigations, it can only shed suspicion on the witnesses themselves about their motivations since coming forward with such dramatic tales.

Cheers BW

[Wickerman]

The discussion began because Bridewell suggested Blotchy may have hid his knife in his beer container. While I think this a stretch, the question remains. The size of his pot would determine the length of knife he would be able to hide.

For myself, I can't see spoiling good brew with a dirty metallic instrument...

Agreed, no-one is going to put a dirty knife in his beer, if he had one it was in his coat pocket.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

I see what you mean, but without description, how does A-man get to be A-man?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Where I am coming from is this, Kelly had a client at that hour, no matter what his physical appearance was like.
Did Hutchinson elaborate his looks? - possibly. But that does not remove him from the scene.
Hutchinson claimed to watch a couple (Kelly & A-man) walk up the passage, Lewis saw a man watching a couple pass up the passage - the incident is confirmed.

Do we really care what Kelly's client looked like? Apparently only those who choose to lambaste our Mr Hutchinson.

"A-man" had left the scene because Kelly was on the tiles again. The next man she came in contact with was that Britannia man (Bethnal Green man), him with the peculiar eyes who accosts prostitutes.....
Quite possibly the last face she saw.

Regards, Jon S.

[GregBaron]

A pale ale pales in comparison...

Greg.
This is all well and good but consider this.

You do agree the police inquired for those pot-boys to see what happened to this container - yes?

You also agree a pail was found in the room which the police used to carry away the organs - yes?

If so, you must agree the police were 'not' looking for a pail, they already had one.
They were looking for a beer container that was not found in the room, so they were not looking for a pail, which was found in the room.

All these tenants likely had a pail to carry water from the pump in the yard.

Regards, Jon S.

Yes Wickerman, I agree with all this. I'm not suggesting that a water bucket was mistaken for a beer pot/pail/can/bucket/growler.

The discussion began because Bridewell suggested Blotchy may have hid his knife in his beer container. While I think this a stretch, the question remains. The size of his pot would determine the length of knife he would be able to hide.

For myself, I can't see spoiling good brew with a dirty metallic instrument...

But could they not have easily checked that pail? Surely it would retain a characteristic odour? And there are pails and pails. If I recall properly, there was a typical lid for the beer carrying kind.

How pale is the ale in your pail Lynn? It seems Blotchy took the pot with him. This suggest to me he didn't do the murder since I imagine he would have slurped all the beer down after the thirst he had worked up.




Greg

[lynn cates]

sans description

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

I see what you mean, but without description, how does A-man get to be A-man?

Cheers.
LC