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

[caz]

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

Why thank you kindly, wiggy. I aim to please.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rosella]

Hi
Do you have anything to support your belief ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In Sugden he writes (Page 89) about Annie. 'The clothing was neither cut nor torn. But the woman wore a large pocket under her skirt, tied around her waist with strings, and this was torn, both down the front and at the side. It was empty.' (Inspector Chandler's deposition:Sugden's notes 11)

I've seen such pockets in Victorian clothing myself many times.

[Trevor Marriott]

In Sugden he writes (Page 89) about Annie. 'The clothing was neither cut nor torn. But the woman wore a large pocket under her skirt, tied around her waist with strings, and this was torn, both down the front and at the side. It was empty.' (Inspector Chandler's deposition:Sugden's notes 11)

I've seen such pockets in Victorian clothing myself many times.

Thank you for that.

So that still leaves other additional plausible explanations

1. She removed them herself and placed them on the ground, if she had them in her skirt pocket, or the same applies if she had the items in her jacket pocket, bearing in mind this jacket went down to her knees.

2. They fell out when she hitched up her skirt not having the pocked tied up, or they fell out of her jacket pocket during the course of her being on the ground

3. The killer removed them from either of the above, after he had killed her to take back any money he had paid her in advance.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[wigngown]

No, thank you Caz. It brightened my day ��
Best regards,

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Trevor & Ros
and Ripperologists


An effort to frame the sequences of the attacks. With Annie Chapman, I agree with you, Ros. He would have used a ruse to lure her off of Hanbury St. Regardless of whether he handed the money over prior to her attack, he would still need some money to show to Annie if she is working on good faith. The consensus is that Jack the Ripper robbed the women supported by the fact that:

1. In all cases, not one cent was ever found on their person.
2. Annie Chapman,s rings were missing.

With Annie Chapman, the Ripper:

1. Would have bloodied his hands with the abdominal cuts and removal of intestines.
2. May have bloodied his hands while cutting her throat.

If blood was present on the items placed near her body, it should have been reported, but it wasn t. This should indicate that her pocket items were removed prior to ripping out her intestines and (possibly) cutting her throat because they weren,t touched by a bloody hand. It could mean that she was lying incapacitated or dead by this sequence.

Trevor, i will double check but i am under the impression that her pocket items were near her corpse. And Ros indicated her pocket was ,ripped, open. I am under the belief that he removed them.

RStD

[Ben]

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.

That's exactly my point, Caz.

If Hutchinson had truly encountered Kelly and had truly been propositioned by her - equivocally or otherwise - there was nothing to stop him drawing a veil over that and telling the police that they chatted about the weather instead; that's if, as others have suggested, he wanted to preserve his and Kelly's respectability. He could even have removed their meeting altogether, and claimed only to have witnessed her encounter Astrakhan.

Conversely, and to address your second post, if Hutchinson lied about the encounter, it made perfect sense to include the sixpence-lending routine because it would have served as a reminder of what we're supposed to interpret from Kelly's subsequent movements, as related by him. "Aha", the police are manipulated into concluding, "that's why she takes the scary-looking stranger home - because he can supply the money that she tried to obtain from Hutchinson, but couldn't".

This is why I detect the very opposite of a ring of truth; I detect *signposting* - the encouraging and "helping along" of inferences that Hutchinson wishes his readers/listeners to make. It was with the intention of doing just that, I suspect, that he included the bit about Kelly asking for sixpence.

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.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I just can't see the need for any modesty-preserving rigmarole, especially if the pair had been known to each other for as long as Hutchinson claimed. I also consider it unlikely, as we've discussed before, that Abberline considered for a moment that Hutchinson had "nefarious" reasons for being there. Since he came forward voluntarily as a witness, the only realistic options for Abberline to consider - in his 1880s shoes - were honest witness versus dishonest publicity-seeker.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

That's exactly my point, Caz.

If Hutchinson had truly encountered Kelly and had truly been propositioned by her - equivocally or otherwise - there was nothing to stop him drawing a veil over that and telling the police that they chatted about the weather instead; that's if, as others have suggested, he wanted to preserve his and Kelly's respectability. He could even have removed their meeting altogether, and claimed only to have witnessed her encounter Astrakhan.

Conversely, and to address your second post, if Hutchinson lied about the encounter, it made perfect sense to include the sixpence-lending routine because it would have served as a reminder of what we're supposed to interpret from Kelly's subsequent movements, as related by him. "Aha", the police are manipulated into concluding, "that's why she takes the scary-looking stranger home - because he can supply the money that she tried to obtain from Hutchinson, but couldn't".

This is why I detect the very opposite of a ring of truth; I detect *signposting* - the encouraging and "helping along" of inferences that Hutchinson wishes his readers/listeners to make. It was with the intention of doing just that, I suspect, that he included the bit about Kelly asking for sixpence.



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I just can't see the need for any modesty-preserving rigmarole, especially if the pair had been known to each other for as long as Hutchinson claimed. I also consider it unlikely, as we've discussed before, that Abberline considered for a moment that Hutchinson had "nefarious" reasons for being there. Since he came forward voluntarily as a witness, the only realistic options for Abberline to consider - in his 1880s shoes - were honest witness versus dishonest publicity-seeker.

All the best,
Ben

totally agree with this as usual, Ben

No matter if hutch was looking for some kind of gain or if he was her killer, there is no reason for him to include anything nefarious. If I was a copper and he said something like-she asked me for the business-I would think-well the rippers killing prostitutes and he just included prostitute/client business, maybe he did just take her up on it. Uh-oh.

Hutch had plenty of time to think up a good story-and apparently he did. And without including himself in anything suspicious or nefarious, but making it clear that Kelly and A-man did.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Abby

It,s not the conversation between Hutch and Mary Jane that is suspicious. For me, it,s the loitering for 45 minutes under the banner of ,,concerned citizen,,. It has the reek of obsession. Still...

Would Hutchinson have had sufficient resources to develop ,a story, that didn,t conflict with the lady,s account of the loitering man (if that is the case)? Could he have known the timeframe that he needed his story to fit within (if he is taking measures to account for being seen)?
There,s not much yet to this thought, but his ,story, does not seem discontiguous with what we know of Mary Jane,s evening. We know that she was without or has very little money earlier in the evening when Barnett visits. Hutch reports seeing her at an hour that doesn,t conflict with any other reports. It,s his statement of seeing her that leads us to believe that she had finished with the blotchy-skin man, and had moved on with her evening. I,m at odds with him being a publicity-seeker; did he go to the police or the press?

I do grasp why he is considered a white-lie witness like Packer and Lewis. Just amounts to how much of his story to believe.

RStD

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

It,s not the conversation between Hutch and Mary Jane that is suspicious. For me, it,s the loitering for 45 minutes under the banner of ,,concerned citizen,,. It has the reek of obsession. Still...

Would Hutchinson have had sufficient resources to develop ,a story, that didn,t conflict with the lady,s account of the loitering man (if that is the case)? Could he have known the timeframe that he needed his story to fit within (if he is taking measures to account for being seen)?
There,s not much yet to this thought, but his ,story, does not seem discontiguous with what we know of Mary Jane,s evening. We know that she was without or has very little money earlier in the evening when Barnett visits. Hutch reports seeing her at an hour that doesn,t conflict with any other reports. It,s his statement of seeing her that leads us to believe that she had finished with the blotchy-skin man, and had moved on with her evening. I,m at odds with him being a publicity-seeker; did he go to the police or the press?

I do grasp why he is considered a white-lie witness like Packer and Lewis. Just amounts to how much of his story to believe.

RStD

Hi Robert
I find everything suspicious about Hutch, and especially the 45 minute wait/stalking behavior. as a matter of fact when I was first into ripperology and first learning about hutch, when I learned of his account of following and waiting outside for mary, and its corroborated by Mary Lewis waiting man, it had an almost visceral effect on me. Heres a man that knew the victim, spoke to her, followed her, waited for her for 45 minutes, on the night of her murder.

He told the police this story and later tells the press the same but adds he actually stood outside her door! Now revealing that not only did he know the victim, he knows where she specifically lives. all on the night of her murder.

add to this , he waits just until the inquest to come forward, and of course the ridiculously detailed account of A-man. Major yellow flags-three of em!

I would bet if he wasn't her killer(and I think theres a good chance he was), and just an attention seeker, then marys killer was probably Blotchy man.

In which case hutch went to marys place for a place to crash, maybe to get lucky, found out she was still preoccupied with Blotchy and/or just not answering her door, waited around for 45 minutes then left. then later realizing later after her murder how to profit. Great friend.

[Paddy]

Wouldn't Hutch have had to say where he went, after leaving the top of Millers Court, to see if any witnesses could corroborate this. Surely the police would have checked this for the very same reason we all question his statement..

Pat......

[Abby Normal]

Wouldn't Hutch have had to say where he went, after leaving the top of Millers Court, to see if any witnesses could corroborate this. Surely the police would have checked this for the very same reason we all question his statement..

Pat......

He did. He said he wandered around all night. No witnesses. No way to corroborate. Very convenient.

[Rosella]

But if Hutch was locked out of his lodging and had no money to go anywhere else what was he to do? Vagrants and the homeless often walked around all night and they may not have met anyone they knew on their wanderings either.

[Wickerman]

As no description was published of Hutchinson, no-one who saw him wanderings around the dark streets is likely to come forward, they wouldn't know who they saw.
Quite aside from the fact that a good number of the homeless and destitute wouldn't have had an amiable relationship with the police anyway - being in and out of trouble themselves.

[Ben]

I think that's Abby's whole point, though.

Regardless of whether or not Hutchinson told the truth about "walking about all night", it was not a verifiable activity, realistically speaking. So even if the police did seek verification of Hutchinson's whereabouts after he claimed to have left Miller's Court, they were very unlikely to have made any progress in that direction. If the murder was committed around the time Lewis and Prater heard a cry of "murder", Hutchinson had nothing resembling an "alibi".

[Wickerman]

I don't read it as Abby's whole point, as part of the point is to cast doubt on his words by adding "very convenient".
So, as a result, Abby is making a negative comment, when in reality we cannot expect much by way of confirmation one way or the other.

It's more a case of taking a neutral situation and putting a negative spin on it, but then that is the basis of criticisms against Hutchinson anyway.