The Red Handkerchief...

[Sam Flynn]

You're seriously suggesting that a man dressed in Astrakhan garb was likely to offer food... "As you can see from my thick gold chain, I have no money to give you, but I have a delicious turnip in my black parcel. Just one bite is worth the sixpence you charge."

I'm glad you said turnip and not swede, or we might have had a diplomatic incident on our hands

[Sam Flynn]

Nah, you're officially off the hook, Sally.

Twas the Wickster on the 12th April.

The ruddy rubbish rag...

Personally, I find the Morning Advertiser one of the more useful sources out there, Ben. The wheat/chaff principle applies, of course, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some folks' reliance on the Times in particular has led to some (IMHO) serious misunderstandings over the years, artificially "blessed" as they are by association with The Thunderer.

[Fisherman]

Ben, Sally!

I will not answer any things like "we know Kelly was looking for money", since that does not belong to the discussion.

The only thing that does is the question "do we have any record of Astrakhan man offering money".

Sally now chooses to answer this:

Your argument is pedantic and thus essentially meaningless.

It is of course neither.

It is not pedantic since we don´t know what the two said to each other. Sally pretends that there can be no other solution than a transaction of sex for money, but everybody who has read the text knows quite well that no such thing is mentioned or even hinted at.

It´s not meaningless, since it effectively breaks up the list Sally presented, possibly aimed at the more gullible parts of the posters, or simply as a result of ignorance on Sally´s own part.

If we are to present lists in order to point out how similar two things are, then we had better make sure that what we suggest as similarities ARE similarities.

It doesn't matter a whit that there is no specific reference to a monetary transaction between Kelly and her potential fiance Astrakhan Man; because the context of the encounter is bleedin' obvious.

What doesn´t matter is if you think it is bleedin obvious, Sally. It´s bleedin obvious that you made a hasch of this point, but do you admit that? No.

There is no mentioning of money, end of story.

Everybody knew what it signfied then; and pretty much everybody understands it now. It's a non-issue.

Then as now it SEEMINGLY signified a deal where sex was offered for some commodity that did not have to be money! Not now and not then. And it´s just seemingly, Sally. No certainty can be there.

As for the two corners of Dorset Street - don't even bother. It's also a total non-issue.

It´s no such thing at all, if the two were speaking of different corners, they were telling different stories instead of parroting each other - as you proposed. You ARE aware of this, I take it?

It is both the common elements in both stories and the common sequence of events that ties them together. The commonality between them is highly specific - and there's no getting away from it.

But how "common" are these elements? And in what meaning are they "common"? Prostitution was common enough. It was common enough to prostitute yourself where you had your room. Men approaching prostitutes was also common.

Speaking about commons, that is.

Let´s take a fresh look at that list of yours again, shall we?

1. Kelly meets somebody known to her at the corner of Dorset Street

Which corner? We don´t know in the case with the Daily News, and so we cannot know if the two stories truly echo each other.

2. Kelly and A.N. Other have a conversation to the effect that Kelly has no money.

The effect? Possibly. In the Daily News it is said that Kelly professed to having no money, but in the Hutchinson story this is not said. Kelly wants to loan sixpence, and she says that she must "find some money". That is not the same as saying that she has none. She could have had half of the rent she owed McCarthy for all we know, and was trying to get hold of the rest.

3. Kelly and A.N. Other part ways.

This is true - but apart from Siamese twins, all people do sooner or later. So it´s perhaps not a very useful point?

4. Kelly is observed by A.N. Other to be accosted by a 'well-dressed' man

Why the quotation marks? Does any of the original sources speak of "well-dressed"? The Daily News says that the man was "respectably dressed", and one could be respectably dressed without showing off any affluence. That is what Astrkhan man does - he is much more than respectably dressed.
It is only when we read what Abberline has to say that "well-dressed" appears. It is not in the Daily News article.

5. A. N. Other observes said 'well-dressed' man offer Kelly money - Fabulous! The answer to her prayers!

This is demonstrably false in the case with the Hutchinson report. Not a word is mentioned about money or any other compensation for sex.

6. A.N. Other observes Kelly and the man go back to Kelly's lodgings.

This is the second point where you get things right, Sally. And it´s not very revolutionary, is it?

7. Kelly is not seen again until her death.

Both stories belong to late Thursday or early Friday (or are presented as such) and Kelly died a few hours later. There is absolutely nothing odd about them not getting to meet Kelly again before her demise. But admittedly, this is the third out of seven points where you are correct.
So, here´s your gallery of unmistaken points:

1. The witness that saw Kelly on Thursday parted ways with her instead of hanging on to her.
2. Kelly reportedly brought a man to her lodgings. How is that remarkable - a prostitute taking a man back to her lodgings?
3. Both witnesses spoke to Kelly on the night between Thursday and Friday, but not again. The reason was that she died on that night.

And now, for clarity´s sake, let´s do the list it should have been done:

1. Kelly meets witnesses in the vicinity of her lodgings in Dorset Street.
2. Kelly and the witness discuss money matters.
3. They then part.
4. Kelly is observed by the witnesses to be approached by a decently or affluently clad man.
5. Kelly is observed having a discussion with the man in question, and in one version she is offered money by the man whereas the other version reflects a conversation that seemingly dealt with the same issue.
6. The witnesses watch as Kelly and the man goes to her lodgings.
7. Kelly is killed on the ensuing night, without the two witnesses ever seeing her again.

This is the list that can be made, and this is how the similarities may be given. Had you done it this way, you would have steered clear of mistakes, and you would have presented the errand in a clear fashion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I don't share your perceived necessity to demonstrate that "coincidences exist". I'm quite sure we all get that, but the bone of contention here is whether these particular "coincidences" were just that - pure freak random unrelated coincidences, and all the more astonishing for that, OR not-so-astonishing related events, with one precipitating the other.

Hi Ben.
Sally appears to be certain, to the exclusion of any other explanation, that Hutchinson's story was derived from the press article of the 10th.
For this she claims to have evidence.
What Sally, and presumably yourself, are offering is not evidence, but opinion, based on your interpretation. I guess this is where we differ.

So we have the press article which has Kelly complaining about money, and then Hutchinson says Kelly asked him for money. That the latter is derived from the former?

What is not mentioned are the independent sources (Barnett, McCarthy?) which have already established Kelly was short of, and desperate for, money.
Why is it not recognised that Kelly was asking all her clients for money?
What is so strange about that?

Then we have the press article saying Kelly takes her client back to her room. Compared to Astrachan being taken back to her room. Once again, the assumption is that the latter is derived from the former.

What is not considered is that we already have two independent sources which confirm this was her business practice.
First Prater, who stated that everyone knows what these tenements are used for. Then Cox, who witnessed Kelly taking Blotchy to her room.
Why is it not recognised that Kelly did her soliciting on the streets, that she conducted her business in her room, as opposed to some back alley or dark corner.

In each case, the latter is not derived from the former, but both the press article & Hutchinson's story are reflective of actual circumstances. They confirm how Kelly conducted her business.
Nothing suspicious here.

[Wickerman]

I have no idea whether he was in custody or not when Kelly was killed. As I have to keep on reminding you, contemporary evidence says he was. Whether other contemporary evidence says so as well, we'll see.

Contemporary evidence also places him in his room on the night in question.
An "impartial" observer would admit this is an impasse, the one rules out the acceptance of the other.
No argument can proceed on this matter until confirmation is obtained.

All in good time.

Hmm, thats what they say about UFO's, Bigfoot and The Flat Earth. "The truth is out there, someday we will find it.....trust me"

Ooohkaay

What?? Are you seriously making that your argument?

And you suggest that I'm desperate...

"....undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat,.." is a condition imposed after trial, after sentencing. "On remand for theft", is pre-trial, pre-sentence.
I did not think the difference was that subtle as to be confusing.
I am not debating whether Isaacs was arrested over the weekend, but as the trial was on Monday, if he was arrested and detained, then he was remanded, and we still do not know what the charge was. Even the mention of "stealing a coat" may be an error.

The bottom line is, lets not allow our confusion between "imprisonment" and "remand" lead us down the wrong path.

[Wickerman]

I don’t think much more needs to be said on those rubbishy discredited offerings from Roney, Paumier and chums. You’ll forgive my “jesting” – which is designed to ridicule the sources in question, and not the posters defending them - but if we’re running away with the idea that a few press-only accounts of spooky, black bag/parcel-carrying well-dressed weirdos equates to evidence of the real Jack the Ripper being such a man,...

Oh I don't mind your colourful approach to a serious issue, and your all too frequent use of the term "discredited" suggests to me an attempt at subliminal influencing.

In reality, these statements were not discredited, whether they identify the actual killer is open to debate. But, a man known to accost women is a far more serious consideration that your hypothetical, presumably undereducated, apparently ill-kept "dosser" suspect.
There is more to this 'profile' than mere mode of dress. There is also the apparent knowledge of dissection admirably explained with startling clarity (by Prosector) of a killer well versed in medical methods.
Something not easily attributable to your average "dosser".

[Wickerman]

It was observed by one reporter that a particular account - almost certainly Sarah Lewis’ –

But Ben, thats where you go off the rails, the article you refer to makes it quite clear the principal source was Mrs Kennedy.
"A woman named Kennedy was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house situate in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement,.."
Star, 10 Nov.

Your "almost certainly" betrays the fact you are trying to shift the source from what the reporter actually wrote, to what suits your argument the best, you substitute Sarah Lewis for Mrs Kennedy.
I am frequently amused at your resolve to accept your preferred source, The Star, verbatim when it suits you. Yet, (as above), you try to change the text when it does not say what you want it to say.

It is based on the actual content of the statement (i.e. evidence),...

If I'm reading you right here (you are being vague), you appear to suggest that because Hutch suggested he had no money, but that the Victoria Home was closed, etc., that this inconsistency proves(?), he was lying about Astrachan & Kelly.
No, it does not.

..the circumstances surrounding the timing and presentation of that statement (i.e. evidence),....

That is not evidence, but interpretation. Your opinion.

other eyewitness testimony (i.e. evidence),..

Too vague to reply to, but I think you are offering opinion again, not evidence.

... and the fact that the statement was discredited (i.e. evidence). Challenge that last point if you fancy going round in repetitive circles, I entreat you.

It is permanently under challenge Ben, you have yet to provide the 'proof'.
You can always admit you have no proof, and we can let it drop.

But it wasn’t a “peripheral detail”. If true, it was about as relevant a detail as the inquest was likely to turn up, impacting as it would have done on the question of a) the time at which the woman was killed, and b) the possible perpetrator. If MacDonald considered it true but irrelevant, he was the biggest moron in history, but fortunately for the truth, it is quite clear he didn’t.

It was peripheral because no questions were made about the incident. Macdonald was more interested in the 'Britannia-man", and the "loiterer".
He let the mention of this couple slip aside, and we can readily see why. Neither Lewis nor anyone else knew who that couple was.

It’s the same unidentified female witness, Jon. The report makes that very clear.

This first witness departed the scene..
"...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,.."

Then we have part two, provided by a second witness..
"...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, which are on the second floor, the little boy being sent to a neighbour's house."

Two witnesses, two sources, no doubt put together by the reporter.

So after all these years of Hutch the squeaky clean witness, Jon suddenly decides that he lied to conceal his criminal activity. Welcome aboard, Jon…

Only you use the term "squeaky clean", I can't help that.
We are dealing with East Enders Ben, I can't see many being "squeaky clean", but they are not all murderers because they tell little white lies.

[Fisherman]

Ah, but significantly, the "from the day he came to England" bit does not appear in the original transcripts. It snuck in afterwards.

All the best,
Ben

I notice that there has been a debate on the issue before, where it was inferred that Levisohn was speaking of Chapman in 1894, when describing him as la-di-da. This in it´s turn was much debated and nothing much came of it.

Not that it matters much - I somehow fail to believe that George Chapman invented the possibility to dress respectably with a peaked cap in the East End in 1894. And there are many a photo of people that are dressed in peaked caps and decent attire enough to be called respectable. Sadly, the word "respectable" is one where each and everybody can make their own calls, so I will not start posting up photos only to have you say that you personally don´t think they represent people who would have been called respectable. I´ve got better things to do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

The Morning Advertiser wasn’t even responsible for that silly error-ridden article that you champion as gospel.......... If they were an out-of-the-loop, B-team pub-trade publication, .....

Have you ever attempted to justify why any Trade paper could not publish equally accurate stories, just because they were a Trade paper?
Please explain how this justification of yours works.

The Cambridge source (oft referred to by Sally), which is supposed to suggest the Morning Advertiser was a Trade paper (contrary to all newspaper listings of the period), uses the phrase in context.

"Naturally, it was devoted to trade interests, rather than to the support of any one political party."

Being devoted to the interests of trade rather than the interests of any single political party. This is what is meant.

The Echo, the Daily News and the Star all served the interests of the Liberal party, which does not mean they carried adds for the Liberal party. It is where they obtain their financial support and their political position which is being referred to.
The Standard, the Morning Post and the Morning Advertiser were all Conservative, the exception being pointed out by the Cambridge source was that the morning Advertiser received no financial support from the Conservative Party, it was wholly independent, being owned by the Brewery.

It does not mean it was a Trade Paper. Trade papers served a small niche market so were not published daily, they were weekly or periodicals.

The Licensed Victuallers had their own Trade papers (Licensed Victuallers Mirror, and the Licensed Victuallers Gazette), quite independent of their daily newspaper flagship, the Morning Advertiser.

As I have pointed out before, this is a listing of all the Trade papers.



No Morning Advertiser.
Do you see ANY dailies listed under Trade?

[Wickerman]

Why do you find it necessary to bring Joseph Isaacs and the Morning Advertiser into every Hutchinson discussion going?

Don't worry Ben, I am not trying to compete with your ever increasing habit of throwing out words like "discredit", "lies", and "fabrication", at everything you don't like.
I understand it is the easiest way of not addressing the issues that threaten your beliefs. You might not be aware though, it does get a bit monotonous.

It tends to suggest you are at a loss to counter the argument with something believable.

Star-bashing is such an outdated, black-and-white, narrow-minded and fogeyish thing to do.

That reminds me, this was on the list of what I asked you to show me.
Name any mainstream researcher who holds the same beliefs, and who places as much faith in this questionable tabloid as you do.
I have shown you those who don't.

He was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder for stealing a coat, whereas later, he was arrested and sentenced to hard labour for stealing a watch....

How do you mean, "whereas later"?
Days later, or a month later?

Isaacs was arrested for stealing a watch on Dec. 6th, a full month after the murder.
Your claim he was "imprisoned for stealing a coat", over Nov. 8-9 is the issue.
We know he was also prosecuted on Nov. 12th, but for what offense is not yet known, maybe that was for stealing the coat.

[And just for Sally's benefit]
....and he was remanded accordingly.
....Mr. Bushby remanded the prisoner.
....was charged on remand.

The press knew the difference between 'remand' and 'imprisonment', even if both you and Sally do not, and they applied it accordingly.

[Sam Flynn]

I notice that there has been a debate on the issue before, where it was inferred that Levisohn was speaking of Chapman in 1894, when describing him as la-di-da.

Well, there's "la-di-da", and then there's Mr Astrakhan.

Incidentally, the popular 1880/81 song "Lardy-dah", from where the expression "la-di-da" comes, was a satire on the poor worker who, in a vain effort to make a better impression, tried to dress up respectably. The chorus goes:

He wears a penny flower in his coat, lardy dah!
And a penny paper collar round his his throat, lardy dah!
In his hand a penny stick,
In his tooth a penny pick,
And a penny in his pocket lardy dah!

[Sam Flynn]

Lardy Dah

Here's the whole song, for those who are interested:

Let me introduce a fellah, lardy dah, lardy dah!
A fellah who's a swell, ah, lardy dah!
Though limited his screw*, yet
The weeks he's struggled thro'it,
For he knows the way to do it, lardy dah! lardy dah!
For he knows the way to do the lardy dah!

chorus:
He wears a penny flower in his coat, lardy dah!
And a penny paper collar round his his throat, lardy dah!
In his hand a penny stick,
In his tooth a penny pick,
And a penny in his pocket lardy dah! lardy dah!
And a penny in his pocket lardy dah!

He is something in an office, lardy dah! lardy dah!
And he's quite the city toff is lardy dah!
He cuts the swell so fine, oh!
He quite forgets to dine, oh!
For he spends his cash on Kino**, lardy dah! lardy dah!
For he blows his screw on Kino, lardy dah!

When he's been out over night, ah, lardy dah!
His luncheon's very slight, ah, lardy dah!
His Paris diamonds glitter,
And the little barmaids titter,
At his sausage and his bitter, lardy dah! lardy dah!
At his sausage and his bitter, lardy dah!

His shirt is very tricky, lardy dah! lardy dah!
It's a pair of cuffs and dickey, lardy dah!
His boots are patent leather,
But they never stand wet weather,
For they're paper glued together, lardy dah! lardy dah!
For they're paper glued together, lardy dah!

His chain is Abysinnian, lardy dah! lardy dah!
His watch is half a guinea 'un, lardy dah!
And if hair oil were abolished,
This swell would be demolished,
For his hat would not be polished, lardy dah! lardy dah!
For his hat would not be polished, lardy dah!

* Screw = wages
** Kino, or Keno, is a game of chance

[Fisherman]

Well, there's "la-di-da", and then there's Mr Astrakhan.

Some will have it they´re one and the same, even!

... not me, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

As I have pointed out before, this is a listing of all the Trade papers.

Uhuh. And as I have pointed out before, you have yet to supply a reference for your source [ I seem to recall that you refused when you first presented it as 'evidence']

Poor scholarship in my view, to say the least.

What I do know is that this it comes from a publication by an advertising agency based on Fleet Street - that being the case, the relationship between R.F. White and the publications listed may not be either impartial or straightforward.

It is not safe to declare it as an objective, impartial information source without understanding those relationships.

Now, we are off-topic, I think. We had this exchange last year - anybody so inclined to re-visit/visit that exchange can do so. As far as I'm concerned, this one is concluded.

[Sally]

The press knew the difference between 'remand' and 'imprisonment', even if both you and Sally do not, and they applied it accordingly.

Oh I'm sure you're correct, Jon - of course the press knew the difference. So do I.

Does that mean that they always reported it correctly? Do you think that the press was infallible?

Because if they were, then Isaacs was in prison when Kelly was murdered and there's an end to it.