Where was Jack the Ripper's payment? How much did Mary Jane Kelly charge?

[Bridewell]

Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that a prostitute could have friends (even male friends)? And ask a friend for a loan? If Mary did charge at a higher rate, Hutch would scarcely have been a customer.

Best wishes
C4

No it's not beyond the bounds of possibility, but nor is it beyond those bounds that Hutchinson was a punter but who sanitised his account to show Kelly and/or himself in a better light. Even if Kelly was able to charge a higher rate and Hutchinson was a friend, might that friendship not have taken the form of offering him a discount because she felt sorry for him? (I'm not saying that's how it was. I'm just reluctant to discount possibilities).

[Bridewell]

I’ve not been aware of any such implication myself, Bridewell, less still from a “lot of posters”. As I think Garry pointed out elsewhere, there is nothing new about expressions of scepticism regarding Hutchinson’s description; they were made at the time of the murders by people with just as much familiarity with 19th century lighting conditions as Abberline, and tellingly, his story came to be “considerably discounted” shortly thereafter.

My impression is that there are more people on this forum who discount Hutchinson's account than who accept it. That's a lot of posters. Whilst I can't say that all of them discount his detailed description of Astrakhan Man solely because of the lighting conditions, those conditions are almost invariably put forward in support of that belief. My post may have been provocative in tone but I don't think the content does anyone an injustice.

[Wickerman]

Yes Ben, I am well aware what a few extra pence can buy, the cubicle was not for security but to provide a modicum of privacy, not complete privacy, and only for those who could afford it.
And I didn't say "everyone" is watching you, that's an exaggeration. The problem is, you cannot tell who is watching you, when you are being watched, and how many are watching you.

You wrote: "As for seeing if people's faces were "familiar", they'd have quite a job, Jon. Anyone so arsed would need to study the chops of 400 people on a very regular basis to take into account the daily influx of itinerants."

That's another exaggeration, criminals are spotted in today's big cities all the time without the 'witness' needing to study the faces of the 300,000 inhabitants. So no, your objection holds no water. There is a far greater chance in a lodging-house of someone recognising a published description than if the killer rented a room in a house.

I'll quote you a line from one of your preferred literary sources, the Star...

" in the absence of immediate motive, which means the absence of clue, we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."

A criticism aimed directly at the police for what was perceived as a futile exercise of searching lodging-houses, so it is not simply a recent modern opinion, but was echoed at the time.

[Bridewell]

If that was all the witness heard, and all the suspect said ("Will you?") doesn't it illustrate my point that some things were understood but not stated?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

And we can't be sure that the exchange Mrs Long overheard was the entirety of the conversation. I can't imagine that Chapman or any other unfortunate would have gone to a secluded place with a punter without first agreeing on a price.

[Ben]

Even if Kelly was able to charge a higher rate and Hutchinson was a friend, might that friendship not have taken the form of offering him a discount because she felt sorry for him? (I'm not saying that's how it was. I'm just reluctant to discount possibilities).

I wouldn't go so far as to discount the possibility, but I'm afraid the idea that Hutchinson "sanitised" his account just doesn't bear scrutiny. If his desire to preserve his respectability (and that of Kelly) was such that he was prepared to distort the reality of his encounter with her (to the extent that a sexual proposition is dressed up as an innocent money loan), surely he was better off avoiding any mention of money altogether? He could easily have claimed that the conversation amounted to little more than a "How are you? Long time no see etc", thereby "sanitising" his account without doing any damage to his subsequent tale involving Astrakhan.

I'm also rather doubtful that Kelly was in the habit of dishing out cut-price sympathy shags for old mates.

Whilst I can't say that all of them discount his detailed description of Astrakhan Man solely because of the lighting conditions, those conditions are almost invariably put forward in support of that belief

I think it would be a mistake to assume that Abberline treated every detail as accurate, down to the last eyelash. His initial, face-value approval indicated that he accepted the barebones of the account; which isn't to say he opposed the idea of some of the more iffy accessorial detail being the result of innocent confabulation on the part of a witness anxious to be cooperative.

I wouldn't oppose that particular idea myself were it not for myriad other factors, discussed extensively elsewhere, that lead me conclude that Hutchinson lied, rather than "confabulated".

I don't doubt that there was more to the Chapman-punter dialogue than was overheard by Long. What I do doubt, very much, is that there was any modesty-preserving equivocation over what was being proposed.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The problem is, you cannot tell who is watching you, when you are being watched, and how many are watching you.

The ripper had that "problem" from the moment he started murdering people, but he obviously didn't allow paranoia to deter him, or else he wouldn't have continued. No, he couldn't "tell" for sure, but he would have been justifiably secure in the assumption that if he did little to draw attention to himself, he would be likely be ignored as just another faceless nobody in 400.

That's another exaggeration, criminals are spotted in today's big cities all the time without the 'witness' needing to study the faces of the 300,000 inhabitants.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Of course criminals are "spotted" all the time, but if they cannot be connected with their as-yet-unsolved crimes and are simply going about their unremarkable, non-criminal daily business at the time of the "spotting", what is there to "spot"? I'm sure many residents of Wichita walked past Dennis Rader washing his 4x4 without sounding the alarm that he might be the BTK killer - why would they?

What "published description" was lodger Jack supposed to have feared being seen "answering" to? A bloke with a peaked/billycock/deerstalker hat and a moustache? That's most of the residents.

I'll quote you a line from one of your preferred literary sources, the Star...

" in the absence of immediate motive, which means the absence of clue, we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."

A criticism aimed directly at the police for what was perceived as a futile exercise of searching lodging-houses, so it is not simply a recent modern opinion, but was echoed at the time.

Yes, but you overlook the far more important point, which is that the police were investigating lodging houses. Irrespective of the Star's criticism (and you'd be changing your tune if you're now siding with them over the police!), the authorities evidently considered it a strong possibility that the killer lived in a common lodging house, which would not be the case if they embraced your logic that the supposed prevalence of criminals made it unsuitable for a criminal to go there.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

I'm suggesting that there was no beating about the bush when it came to prostitutes approaching potential clients and vice versa, at least not in that environment. I'd further suggest that evasion and euphemism was even less likely to occur in a situation where both parties were well known to each other, as Hutchinson claimed was the case.

Hi Ben,

Whether or not the entire incident ever happened, Hutch had his reasons for reporting that Kelly had asked him to "lend" her sixpence and that he was unable to help. She was dead so he could have reported any or no conversation between them, as long as it didn't adversely affect his own, potentially precarious position. In this regard he would have been wise to avoid - at least initially, and unless he was put under pressure - any direct suggestion of a sexual nature, true or not.

On balance, assuming there was a conversation, and presuming Hutch was no murderer, I still believe there would have been a general understanding of what was meant when a known prostitute asked a man to "lend" her money. Abberline was quite capable of reading between the lines - and allowing for a blurring of them - while satisfying himself that Hutch had not been up to anything infinitely more nefarious.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I wouldn't go so far as to discount the possibility, but I'm afraid the idea that Hutchinson "sanitised" his account just doesn't bear scrutiny. If his desire to preserve his respectability (and that of Kelly) was such that he was prepared to distort the reality of his encounter with her (to the extent that a sexual proposition is dressed up as an innocent money loan), surely he was better off avoiding any mention of money altogether? He could easily have claimed that the conversation amounted to little more than a "How are you? Long time no see etc", thereby "sanitising" his account without doing any damage to his subsequent tale involving Astrakhan.

Ah, well that's my point in a nutshell, Ben. If he was Kelly's murderer, he had no need whatsoever to volunteer to the police, never mind "dress up", any suggestion of a requested financial transaction between the two of them. That is precisely why I can hear the ring of truth here, if not the whole, unvarnished version of the truth. Hutchinson had some time to think about what he was going to say, so the mention of the sixpence makes little sense coming from the killer's own mouth. If his desire to preserve his freedom and his neck was such that he was prepared to confront the police and lie to them (to the extent that a murderous encounter is dressed down as an innocent witness sighting), "surely he was better off... etc etc" [exactly what you said]?

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Caz...

In the spirit of historical research, I tested out your dialogue from Post#39. {rubs a swollen jaw} I don't think that was what was said lol.

IN THE CASE OF ANNIE CHAPMAN...

If he had removed the items after cutting her throat and/or abdomen, wouldn't there have been blood reported on the items laid out next to her?

RStD

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Caz...

In the spirit of historical research, I tested out your dialogue from Post#39. {rubs a swollen jaw} I don't think that was what was said lol.

IN THE CASE OF ANNIE CHAPMAN...

If he had removed the items after cutting her throat and/or abdomen, wouldn't there have been blood reported on the items laid out next to her?

RStD

An explanation for the things laid out could be quite simple. If she had gone into the yard to have sex and that was to be attained by her hitching her skirt up. If she had items in her pockets which she didnt want to fall out she could have taken them out and placed them down to pick up afterwards.

There are always plausible explanations to be found to every part of these old accepted theories which modern day ripperology has been built on. Only now are we finding that it has been built using straw bricks.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert St Devil]

I think that ,,hitching the skirt up,, may have been a factor in the case of Polly Nicholls. Paul or Cross say that they tried to pull the skirt down, but it barely reached past the knees. So she may have hitched it up under her dress in preparing for a sexual encounter.

[Rosella]

I believe Annie's pockets were the old fashioned ones that were suspended by a cord under her skirts. These sorts of pockets had a cord, (like a very thin pyjama cord,) which pulled the top of the pocket together so that items wouldn't fall out.

Pockets actually inset into women's clothing, especially jackets, as distinct from false decorative pockets, had only really become fashionable in the previous decade. They were small and narrow, and many women preferred the more roomy oldfashioned pockets, hanging over petticoats and accessible through a slit in the outer skirt.

Skirts in the late 1880's weren't particularly wide and if Polly had fallen, in her death throes, in a way that bunched her skirts under her, it could have been quite difficult to grab hold of the whole skirt and pull it down to her ankles without moving her, which Cross and Paul didn't want to do.

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe Annie's pockets were the old fashioned ones that were suspended by a cord under her skirts. These sorts of pockets had a cord, (like a very thin pyjama cord,) which pulled the top of the pocket together so that items wouldn't fall out.

Hi
Do you have anything to support your belief ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[wigngown]

Quote of the week "...let me fondle your knockers?"
LOLs

[wigngown]

That makes perfect sense.