The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

It scarcely matters, because - for some of us, at least - the parallels between those press reports and some key events/descriptions in Hutchinson's story are rather obvious.

We do know from previous examples that the police did follow the press reports. Which made perfect sense given that there were more reporters than detectives on the streets.
That said, you appear to be offering two scenario's, that Abberline had available to him the statements of Sarah Lewis, and the coincidental popular stories available in the press concerning 'well-dressed' men.

Therefore, he must decide which to align Hutchinson's story with, was his story influenced by similar articles published in the press, or was his story confirmed by Sarah Lewis?
It would appear he arrive at the correct conclusion, that similar press stories are all too common and don't present anything of significance.

Simply, liars who choose to invent a character do not need to gather inspiration from the press. These 'well-dressed' men are already available on the streets.

[Sam Flynn]

We do know from previous examples that the police did follow the press reports.

Quite possibly, but I daresay Abberline had his hands full enough, in the two days between the Kennedy/Roney story appearing in the papers and Hutchinson's popping up at the police station, to have spent too much energy in scrutinising the tabloids with a critical eye.

Simply, liars who choose to invent a character do not need to gather inspiration from the press. These 'well-dressed' men are already available on the streets.

And these 'well-dressed' men all invariably approach a woman in the street, just after she admitted to a friend that she was desperate for money. The 'well-dressed' men all make a promise to said woman and accompany her to her lodgings. The 'well-dressed" men all hide their faces from passers-by, and/or glare at them sternly after pulling down their hats. These 'well-dressed' men are all invariably carrying a leather bag or a "kind-of" parcel.

It's not just the description, Jon - it's the chain of events as well.

[Wickerman]

Quite possibly, but I daresay Abberline had his hands full enough, in the two days between the Kennedy/Roney story appearing in the papers and Hutchinson's popping up at the police station, to have spent too much energy in scrutinising the tabloids with a critical eye.And these 'well-dressed' men all invariably approach a woman in the street, just after she admitted to a friend that she was desperate for money. The 'well-dressed' men all make a promise to said woman and accompany her to her lodgings. The 'well-dressed" men all hide their faces from passers-by, and/or glare at them sternly after pulling down their hats. These 'well-dressed' men are all invariably carrying a leather bag or a "kind-of" parcel.

It's not just the description, Jon - it's the chain of events as well.

I would say Gareth that women in Kelly's position were always begging for money (ref: Cox's claim). Kelly took the man back to her house because that's where she conducts her business, Prater confirmed that these units were known for this purpose.

A client hiding his face from passers-by, is that so unusual?
What do you really expect, the client to wave to everybody passing, "hey look at me, I'm in for a good time tonight!"
Really Gareth, these encounters take place at night for a reason, and no client seeks attention from any passing public.
All the details you point to are very normal.

No liar needs to consult newspapers for everyday occurrences.

If, the description of Astrachan had been a take-off from the press we would expect the descriptions to be identical. You then create a suspect from an already acknowledged suspicious person.
At least you now have a point to this exercise.

[Sam Flynn]

I would say Gareth that women in Kelly's position were always begging for money

A client hiding his face from passers-by, is that so unusual?

It's the combination of those elements, and others, that make it rather suspicious.

All the details you point to are very normal.

About as normal as the number "6" turning up in a lottery, perhaps. But, what if you get 6, 24, 29, 33 and 41...? As I say, the problem I have with Hutchinson's statement is we have a chain of events, combined elements, which match in large degree what appeared in the Kennedy/Roney stories, practically in the same sequence.

If, the description of Astrachan had been a take-off from the press we would expect the descriptions to be identical.

I'd expect the "core" description to be basically the same, perhaps, but not the peripheral elements. He could have made as many of those up as he liked, with little fear of contradiction.

[Ben]

Hutchinson didn’t have a salary but he was undoubtedly paid wages otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to afford to stay in the Victoria Home. He was described as being not in regular employment which didn’t mean he was unemployed.

Yep, I don't have a problem with any of that.

It is even possible, despite the total lack of evidence, that Hutchinson was given compensation money for missed work or work-seeking opportunities. But we can certainly forget the idea that he was paid "five times his usual salary".

[Sally]

Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Wheeling Gossip, though:

'Some clever individual having invented a detailed description of the man seen walking about with Mary Kelly just before she was murdered...'

Sounds about right.

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

Yeah, the "invented" bit tends to get glossed over by some. Can't imagine why...

The ability to understand the criminal element better belongs more to the Abberline's of the force than the Macnaghten/Oldfield desk jockey's.

Macnaghten/Oldfield?

No, that's a dreadful comparison, Jon.

George Oldfield had been with the police for 30 years prior to the Yorkshire Ripper investigation, earning successive promotions to the point where he was in a position to head the investigation, whereas Macnaghten was an import from a tea plantation with no prior experience of professional policing. The former attained the position of "desk jockey", as you describe it, because his abilities as a non-"desk jockey" policeman had been recognised over decades, resulting in an ascension in those police ranks. Or are you suggesting that the policemen who have the best knowledge of the "criminal element" are newbies or those who don't get promoted? I suppose, according to this logic, that a private in the army knows more about warfare than a "desk-jockey" field marshal?

If you want a true "apples to apples" comparison, then Oldfield's true Whitechapel counterpart would be Donald Swanson, who had overall charge of the ripper investigation and was a professional career policeman with decades of experience, just like Oldfield. Too bad it didn't make either of them infallible.

Arguing points is what we all do, but our points for the most part cannot be proven, most of us know this. The contention comes in to play when someone keeps insisting the points they argue are proven as fact

Yes, but what you do is "argue points" that can be proven wrong, and that's a lot worse.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Kelly took the man back to her house because that's where she conducts her business, Prater confirmed that these units were known for this purpose.

But Mary Cox, another prostitute occupant of these units, did not use hers for that purpose, at least not on the night in question. This inevitably invites the possibility that Kelly did as Cox did, and "serviced" her clients on the streets, not in her room. Why is anyone's guess - quicker and more lucrative probably, and it prevented their only sanctuaries from getting sullied. One could argue, of course, that Blotchy was a probable client, but then Kelly's behaviour on entering the room with this supposed client points very much away from a trousers-down contractual arrangement.

(No nonsense, please, about Cox taking clients home and not mentioning it at the inquest. If she was candid enough to disclose the fact that she was "an unfortunate", she wasn't about to conceal information about taking clients home that night, had she done so.)

Hi Gareth,

I don't dispute the fact that Cox provided a more detailed description than Lawende. I was suggesting that the latter's vantage point may have better facilitated a good description, since Cox's evidence gives the distinct impression that she only followed Blotchy from behind. Even if the man had turned round at some point, one woman's "blotchy" impression is another man's typical weathered-looking East-ender.

Either way, it doesn't argue against my original point.

...Whatever it was!

I'm so jet-lagged after spending a pleasant three and a half months in Australia that I honest can't remember!

Pursuant to your spot-on observations regarding Hutchinson taking inspiration from the press, this article just about clinches it:

"There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset street. Kelly informed her that she had no money, and it was then she said that if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon after they parted, and a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings"

Notice that "murdered woman Kelly" is a direct verbatim quote from Hutchinson's statement.

All the best,
Ben

[GUT]

G'day Ben

What about the possibility that Mrs Cox didn't do any business that night?

[Fisherman]

Pursuant to your spot-on observations regarding Hutchinson taking inspiration from the press, this article just about clinches it:

"There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset street. Kelly informed her that she had no money, and it was then she said that if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon after they parted, and a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings"

Notice that "murdered woman Kelly" is a direct verbatim quote from Hutchinson's statement.

All the best,
Ben

Hmm, Ben.

You are making a slight mistake when you put quotation marks around "the murdered woman Kelly" - in the snippet you provide, the quouted woman only says "the murdered woman". Of course, that too tallies with what Hutchinson said, but it would have been a lot more useful if the word Kelly had been added. As it stands, I think the papers used the phrase "the murdered woman" to a very large extent - long before the Kelly killing as well - and that could well have coloured how people who read the papers expressed themselves. If the expression was the order of the day, why would Hutchinson not use it?

Next - "Kelly informed her that she had no money". If you think about it, just how controversial is this? Hutchinson says the same thing, that Kelly asked him for money. I know that is the point you are making, but on the whole, we know that she was in arrears with the rent for her room, so we can easily see that she was in need of money.
There can be no knowing how far McCarthys generosity stretched, but in general, I think it is a sound suggestion that he wanted his money. He sent Indian Harry for it on the murder morning, so it seems beyond dispute.

What would Kelly do in this kind of situation? Well, habitually asking anybody she knew if they could lend her a little something would be reasonable, would it not?

That leaves us with two factors: The respectable appearance of the punter and the fact that he accompanied Kelly to her lodgings.

Beginning from the end, although we cannot tell for sure where Kelly managed her business, we do know - just as has been pointed out - that the women of Millers Court were free to bring men to their rooms and serve them there, no objections raised.
So it is not a very controversial thing if more than one person saw her bringing customers to No 13, is it? And the woman quoted is described as an associate of Kellys. That means that she would have been out and about in the very same errand at the very same times as Kelly, and perhaps she was even living in the court.

The respectability? Well, that covers a lot more people than the Astrakhan type. BS man was described as respectably dressed, and he would not have been wearing jewels, spats and astrakhan lined clothing.

In the end, there is not very much left to point to some sort of certainty that Hutchinson was describing the same event. Granted, there are similarities, but they give little call for any amazement, once you delve deeper into the issue.

It should be taken to the protocol that I have always thought the similarities have given cause to question Hutchinson, but I am no longer as sure.

One final thing, relating to the "respectable" thing: Kelly spoke of having been engaged in a classy brothel and following a man to France as his mistress. It was said that she was young and beautiful, "fair as a Lily" as Prater put it.
Could it be that she specialized in men of some more wealth than the usual Eastender, and that her services were a tad more pricy?

Of course, one could ask what she was doing in Dorset Street if this was the case, but it still has me wondering. The younger and the more beautiful the prostitute, the more expensive her services will be, on a general level. I think that´s beyond dispute.
Or could it be that all prostitutes in the area charged the same money? A sickly, run-down, 47 year old woman like Chapman, and a 25 year old, supposedly beautiful girl like Kelly?

In this context, it can be suggested that perhaps more respectable men were less inclined to do the business out in the open streets, so that may - may! - be a point for Kelly using her room for working purposes.

Thoughts?

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

(No nonsense, please, about Cox taking clients home and not mentioning it at the inquest. If she was candid enough to disclose the fact that she was "an unfortunate", she wasn't about to conceal information about taking clients home that night, had she done so.

And incur the wrath of McCarthy? Wasn't cox living in one of McCarthy's rents? I wouldn't have thought he would have been too pleased had Cox revealed to all and sundry that she was using his room for immoral purposes.

Pursuant to your spot-on observations regarding Hutchinson taking inspiration from the press, this article just about clinches it:

"There are conflicting statements as to when the woman was last seen alive, but that upon which most reliance appears to be placed is that of a young woman, an associate of the deceased, who states that at about half past 10 o'clock on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset street. Kelly informed her that she had no money, and it was then she said that if she could not get any she would never go out any more, but would do away with herself. Soon after they parted, and a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings"

Notice that "murdered woman Kelly" is a direct verbatim quote from Hutchinson's statement.

When did this article appear in the newspapers? When was Hutchinson supposed to have read it?

[Ben]

You are making a slight mistake when you put quotation marks around "the murdered woman Kelly"

No I'm not, Fisherman. You read the quote too hastily.

The extract includes the following verbatim quotes from Hutchinson's statement, which I will highlight in bold again:

..."on Thursday night she met the murdered woman..."

"...a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly..."

If you're able to produce any evidence of the phrases "met the murdered woman" and "murdered woman Kelly" appearing anywhere other than in this particular article and Hutchinson's statement, then I'd agree that the expressions were "the order of the day". As it stands, however, these phrases are unique to these two sources only, which is doubly interesting when we reflect that these same sources both have Kelly bumping into a witness on the streets near her home, at night, when the former was looking for money; both include an encounter between Kelly a respectable-looking man "soon after" Kelly and the witness parted; and with both "witnesses" watching Kelly return home with that man.

The contextual similarity is already too striking to dismiss as "coincidence", but when taken in conjunction with those key identical phrases, we're left with no option but to realise a connection between the two sources - specifically, that one gave birth to the other.

"Granted, there are similarities, but they give little call for any amazement, once you delve deeper into the issue."

Precisely. It is only "once you delve deeper into the issue" that your "amazement" at such strikingly similar sources gives way to a full and clear realisation that Hutchinson read the article - for free in one of the general rooms of the Victoria Home - and used it as a basis for his own story, remembering key quotes from the original in so doing.

A more glaring example of "tin match box - empty" syndrome you never will encounter!

Next - "Kelly informed her that she had no money". If you think about it, just how controversial is this?

Not "controversial", so much as unrepresentative of Kelly's likely mindset on the night of her death according to reliable inquest evidence, i.e. Mary Ann Cox, not the Daily News or Hutchinson. If Kelly was concerned that she owed money, she certainly wasn't showing it when Cox saw her, intoxicated and spending considerable time singing in company with Blotchy. In fact, the contrast between Kelly's reported behaviour and that of Cox herself - who was very concerned about money, and was constantly venturing in and out to find some - couldn't contrast more starkly.

The same applies to Kelly allegedly taking clients home - not a controversial idea at all, just not necessarily in accordance with her behaviour on the night of her death, as reported by Mary Cox. I realise some people here have extremely funny ideas as to what constitutes normal behaviour for a destitute alcoholic prostitute (I'm not saying you, necessarily), but serenading clients for over an hour certainly isn't normal behaviour for a woman in such a position.

One final thing, relating to the "respectable" thing: Kelly spoke of having been engaged in a classy brothel and following a man to France as his mistress. It was said that she was young and beautiful, "fair as a Lily" as Prater put it.
Could it be that she specialized in men of some more wealth than the usual Eastender, and that her services were a tad more pricy?

No, Fish.

I would say rather emphatically not.

There is no evidence beyond Kelly's alleged say so for much, if any, of her claims about her past employment. They could simply have been yarns casually spun or grossly exaggerated a la Stride. Nor is there any evidence that the "gay house" where she allegedly worked was the slightest bit "classy", and even if it was, the reality is that by 1888 she was living in the worst street in London in the grottiest area possible. If she had any intention of expecting continued "classiness" in that district, she was fantasizing.

A posh gentleman in pursuit of "classy" totty wasn't about to footslog it to Dorset Street to procure it, certainly not dressed to the nines and a magnate for muggers. He would have sought it in one of the "classier" parts of town, or if, in the unlikely event that the posh gentlemen in question had lustful designs on East End prozzies in particular, they had only to wait in their carriages at Aldgate for the prostitutes to come to them.

I personally would be extremely surprised if Kelly was "beautiful". Slightly overweight with a pale complexion and protruding teeth according to some of the less sentimental accounts. Fundamentally, if a prostitute's "beauty" was such that she was able to charge extra and filter her clients to the exclusion of anyone who wasn't well-dressed (that's Blotchy out!), she would not have been living in Dorset Street in destitute circumstances.

And the woman quoted is described as an associate of Kellys. That means that she would have been out and about in the very same errand at the very same times as Kelly, and perhaps she was even living in the court

Well, no, because the story is itself an obvious fabrication. This alleged "associate" of Kelly's was a conspicuous no-show at the inquest, and made the interesting claim that Kelly's young son had to leave the room while she conducted business with this respectably-dressed gentleman.

We won't have the "BS = respectable" debate again, but suffice to say I don't believe it accurate, since it appeared only in the press version of Schwartz's statement.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

And incur the wrath of McCarthy? Wasn't cox living in one of McCarthy's rents? I wouldn't have thought he would have been too pleased had Cox revealed to all and sundry that she was using his room for immoral purposes.

If she was so scared of incurring the "wrath of McCarthy", she could so easily have concealed the fact that was in the business of going out at night to earn an "immoral" living, but nope, she came clean and "revealed to all and sundry" that she was a prostitute.

When did this article appear in the newspapers?

10th November, Daily News (God love 'em).

When was Hutchinson supposed to have read it?

Any time between its release on Saturday morning and his coming forward at 6pm on Monday evening.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

No I'm not, Fisherman. You read the quote too hastily.

You quoted specifically "the murdered woman Kelly" and that phrase did not occur in both sources. That is a misquote, I´m afraid.

Anyway, the phrase that I suggested as being order of the day was not "met the murdered woman" or "saw the murdered woman" but instead just "the murdered woman" - like, for instance in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of 1891, commenting on Coles:

"The murdered woman, judging from her appearance, belonged to the abandoned class, and was fairly well dressed."

That was the phrase I was after - the murdered woman. And that could well have been picked up on by all and sundry, making the phrase totally unremarkable, no matter if you garnish it with a "met" or a "saw".
The fact that the name Kelly is used in combination with the phrase obviously owes to the murdered woman in this instance being so named. I therefore doubt that I shall find many examples of the phrase together with the name Kelly! But I know that there are examples aplenty of the phrase "The murdered woman ..." in the Ripper press reports.

The contextual similarity is already too striking to dismiss as "coincidence", but when taken in conjunction with those key identical phrases, we're left with no option but to realise a connection between the two sources - specifically, that one gave birth to the other.

I don´t know about you, but I managed to squeeze through on that point, for the reasons I posted earlier.

Precisely. It is only "once you delve deeper into the issue" that your "amazement" at such strikingly similar sources gives way to a full and clear realisation that Hutchinson read the article - for free in one of the general rooms of the Victoria Home - and used it as a basis for his own story, remembering key quotes from the original in so doing.

You misread me. I meant that the "strikingly similar sources" were not similar enough to amaze me.

Not "controversial", so much as unrepresentative of Kelly's likely mindset on the night of her death according to reliable inquest evidence, i.e. Mary Ann Cox, not the Daily News or Hutchinson. If Kelly was concerned that she owed money, she certainly wasn't showing it when Cox saw her, intoxicated and spending considerable time singing in company with Blotchy. In fact, the contrast between Kelly's reported behaviour and that of Cox herself - who was very concerned about money, and was constantly venturing in and out to find some - couldn't contrast more starkly.

The same applies to Kelly allegedly taking clients home - not a controversial idea at all, just not necessarily in accordance with her behaviour on the night of her death, as reported by Mary Cox. I realise some people here have extremely funny ideas as to what constitutes normal behaviour for a destitute alcoholic prostitute (I'm not saying you, necessarily), but serenading clients for over an hour certainly isn't normal behaviour for a woman in such a position.

Surprise: You can be out of money and sing! The two phenomenons are not mutually exclusive.

Pondering the fact that Kelly was a prostitute, I´d say that she was also aware that most punters prefer a merry girl to a sad one. In Sweden, we have a special name for prostitutes: "glädjeflickor". That would translate to girls of happiness.

To be a bit more blunt: If you can fake an orgasm, you can fake a smile.

It could also well be that Kelly was a happy girl in general, who was kind of careless - but who had been told that if she did not pay, she was out.

I also happen to think that a girl arm in arm with a punter, afterwards drunkenly singing away to her client as the two undress and share the last of his beer, tallies perfectly with how a prostitute could act.
I don´t know how your picture of how such a transaction would have gone down looks, with a drunken prostitute and an equally drunken punter? Silently and cautiously?

Reading tip: The short story "Rain" by W. Somerset Maugham. It is about a cheeky, happy, noisy prostitute. It is also one of the best short stories written, so you will not be bored when taking in what I speak of.

No, Fish.

I would say rather emphatically not.

Then I´d disagree. No matter if she DID work in a high-class house or not, it still remains that she was half the age of Chapman et al.
If you think it "emphatically" applies that they would have been same price all over, then you may need to speak to people in the trade.

I´ll say nothing more, being a man of discretion.

Well, no, because the story is itself an obvious fabrication. This alleged "associate" of Kelly's was a conspicuous no-show at the inquest, and made the interesting claim that Kelly's young son had to leave the room while she conducted business with this respectably-dressed gentleman.

So, Ben, are ALL stories where Kelly is mentioned as being with a respectably clad man fabrications?

We won't have the "BS = respectable" debate again, but suffice to say I don't believe it accurate, since it appeared only in the press version of Schwartz's statement.

Od course we will have that debate again! But I will end it quickly:

If the press version had been contradicted by the police version, you would have had a case.

Since it isn´t, it´s I who have the case instead.

The ONLY source we have about BS man´s appearance has him down as respectable. There is not a word, not a letter, that has him down as anything else. Let´s respect that, shall we?

Not that it matters in the end. Ask yourself if a much less lavish clothing and appearance than that of Astrakhan man could have gone down as respectable.

See what I mean?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

You quoted specifically "the murdered woman Kelly" and that phrase did not occur in both sources.

Yes it DID, Fisherman!

Hutchinson's police statement:

"...just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I met the murdered woman Kelly and she said to me: “Hutchinson, will you lend me sixpence?”

Daily News, 10th November:

"Kelly informed her that she had no money...Soon after they parted, and a man who is described as respectably dressed came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money."

And:

"on Thursday night she met the murdered woman at the corner of Dorset street"

In only two sources do the phrases "met the murdered woman" and "the murdered woman Kelly" appear, and these sources are Hutchinson's statement involving Kelly encountering a witness whilst looking for money, then bumping into a respectably dressed man and taking him home, and the Daily News article involving precisely that sequence of events. We either have two independent accounts that are "coincidentally" near-identical to one another in terms of event chronology and terminology, or we have one account heavily "inspiring" the content of the other.

Surprise: You can be out of money and sing! The two phenomenons are not mutually exclusive.

But if you're destitute and supposedly in desperate need of hard and fast cash for tomorrow's rent collection, you're not likely to be whiling your time away singing and boozing. If not mutually exclusive, the two "phenomenons" are mutually incompatible to say the least.

I´d say that she was also aware that most punters prefer a merry girl to a sad one.

This was the Victorian East End of London, Fish, not the Moulin Rouge. These were beggars who could not afford to be choosers, and that applies to both parties in the transaction. The grotty local punters were no more holding out for a soprano with a smile than the prostitutes were holding out for silk top hats with wads of cash. Hour-long boozy serenades were about the last thing one would expect to occur in a typical east London prozzie-punter transaction. If a prostitute could charge top dollar for that sort of thing, she would not be on the poverty line and she certainly wouldn't be living in Dorset Street, and if a punter could afford to pay top dollar for that sort of thing, he certainly wouldn't be venturing into the slums of the East End to find it.

Silently and cautiously?

Nope, just two shunts and a grunt, and a few coins cast onto the cobblestones while the flies are done up. Then onto the next one, spend the earnings on gin, then onto the next one...etc etc.

Reading tip: The short story "Rain" by W. Somerset Maugham. It is about a cheeky, happy, noisy prostitute.

...who sailed to exotic island locations in distinguished company, and who didn't live in an east end hovel on the poverty line.

Yep, I know the one...

So, Ben, are ALL stories where Kelly is mentioned as being with a respectably clad man fabrications?

Yes, in all probability.

Significantly, there is distinct dearth of a "respectably clad" men mentioned at the inquest.

The ONLY source we have about BS man´s appearance has him down as respectable. There is not a word, not a letter, that has him down as anything else. Let´s respect that, shall we?

No, let's acknowledge the reality that if Schwartz had referred to the man as looking "respectable" when speaking to the police, the detail would have appeared in Swanson's report. The Star report placed a knife in pipeman's hand, whereas no knife was mentioned in the Swanson report, but since the latter account did not say "no knife in Pipeman's hand", you presumably accept the presence of the knife as accurate in the absence of a specific and direct contradiction on that point?

All the best,
Ben

Edit to earlier post:

Should have read: "In fact, the contrast between Kelly's reported behaviour and that of Cox herself - who was very concerned about money, and was constantly venturing in and out to find some - couldn't be more stark" (altered bit in bold).