The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“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”

If you mean to say that Sally has “excluded” all other eyewitness accounts (both genuine and bogus) as possible sources of inspiration for his “story”, then you’ve misread or misunderstood her posts. It has been suggested that the 10th November article must have been one such source, and I agree, it must have been, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have gained ideas elsewhere, e.g. from Sarah Lewis herself, whose account (involving a black bag man) he had very obviously heard about in order to recognise himself in.

But yes, Hutchinson’s account is clearly derived from the 10th November article. No other explanation for the astonishing similarity is even vaguely acceptable, and freak coincidence simply won’t cut it. You continue to miss the point regarding the significance of the “looking for money” detail. Two unrelated accounts involving Kelly looking for money wouldn’t be particularly significant in isolation, but when taken in conjunction with an identical sequence of events – Kelly parting company with witness, Kelly encountering a client, client offering her money (yes, we’re keeping that one in, fight me), Kelly and client going home, witness taking an unusual degree of interest in Kelly’s interaction with client, identical phrasing in the two accounts etc – the case for an “unrelated coincidence” is rendered laughable in its improbability.

It doesn’t cease to be astonishingly “coincidental” just because you want pick apart each individual detail and needlessly point out how “not weird” they are as stand-alone components. Nobody’s disputing their non-weirdness. It wouldn’t be “weird” for Kelly to encounter person A, fail to extract money from him/her, and then move on person B where she is more successful in that regard. That wouldn’t be weird, but it would be very, very specific, especially if person A was an “associate of the deceased”, and person B a “respectably dressed” client. The odds against that precise sequence of events occurring twice in one night, involving precisely the same generic characters on both occasions, are astronomical. Just so with the identical phraseology; “met the murdered woman” appearing as it does in just two sources for the whole year of 1888 – the Daily News on the 10th November and Hutchinson’s statement, i.e. the same two sources that contain the aforementioned virtually identical sequence of events. And guess what? It’s not a “weird” expression. There are just so many other non-weird expressions one could use in preference to that specific one.

I’m troubled that you think you’ve found “confirmation” that Kelly used her bed for prostitution. Prater’s observation does not imply that all prostitute occupants rooms used their rooms for that purpose instead of the streets, as Mary Cox apparently did, and nor is there any proof that Blotchy was a client. Indeed, the behaviour of Kelly once inside the room points very much against it. You can argue that it is reasonable to suppose that Kelly’s room was used for business, but that’s as far as you can go.

“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”

Oh dear, so you’re not an “impartial observer” then? You can’t be, according to the above, because you reject the unambiguously worded Lloyds Weekly article, and pay heed instead to the gossip of some nosey neighbour, remember? Of course, a truly “impartial observer” pays attention to the chronology of events, and is aware that updates and revisions can be made to an active investigation once further information comes to light. An “impartial observer”, being aware of this, would note that the revelation of Isaacs’s imprisonment during the Kelly murder appeared much later in December than the offerings from Cusins involving him allegedly “pacing the floor” (the way serial killers do?). The impartial observer would conclude from this that the new information had overridden and nullified the early confusion, thus neatly accounting for the sudden and total loss of interest in Isaacs as a suspect. That’s how a truly “impartial observer” would reason. A biased person intent on derailing every thread he participate in with reminder after unnecessary reminder of his unpopular, controversial views (which masquerade unconvincingly as mainstream thinking), on the other hand…

“In reality, these statements were not discredited, whether they identify the real killer is open to debate”

Not in your “reality” perhaps, but in actual reality, they were the very examples of “tattle” that Sugden wisely cautioned us to discount. I realise that the average net-bound hobbyist might find it fun to look away from inquest reports and police statements, and seek their top-hatted toff killer in the press, but those of us with better discernment will know that these silk top-hatted black-baggers (who invariably hint wittily at their ripper identity) appear in the press only for a reason. And no, I don’t mean a crap, cop-out reason like “the inquest was quick and rushed” or “the coroner wasn’t interested in hearing that sort of evidence” (*cough* bollocks), but a logical, far more obvious reason – it was nonsense, and it was filtered out prior to the inquest.

“A man known to accost women is a far more serious consideration than your hypothetical, presumably undereducated, apparently ill-kept “dosser” suspect”

Err…no.

Bad luck, Jon, but no.

You can “seriously consider” whatever floats your leaking boat, but the generic local working class offender will always be considered the most likely suspect by experts and researchers alike. This is a troubling reality for you, no doubt, but a reality nonetheless, and it will continue to be so long after you’ve gone the way of the dodo, I’m afraid. You need to remember that most people’s views on likely ripper suspects aren’t stuck in the 1960s and 1970s, where dashing docs with top hats and black bags were all the rage. We’ve all moved on from that nonsense, and the only exceptions are authors seeking to promote a celebrity suspect and, well…you, apparently. What the killer did to those women was crude butchery, according the preponderance of medical evidence from the period and the majority of medical commentary today, not “dissection”, and it’s worth reminding ourselves of the various cases of serial killers who were suspected of having medical knowledge, only for the caught and identified reality to prove otherwise.

But you pop yourself along to a “medical knowledge” debate thread if you’re insistent on reviving one of those. This is going to be the last word on that hideously off topic issue.

[Wickerman]

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.

Well, here we go again introducing another assumption you cannot establish.

The fact remains the Daily Advertiser was not a Trade Paper and the Cambridge History reference does not say it was.
Several papers were devoted to the interests of political parties, the Daily Advertiser was not among them, it was devoted to interests of the Brewery trade, obviously being their prime source of support.

It cannot be difficult to find listings of Trade Papers from the 19th century which list the Morning Advertiser among them, IF, such was the case.

I have used these direct references to prove this beyond any doubt (including Sells, which confirmed my argument), the sooner you accept this as opposed to ducking & weaving by suggesting 'potentially suspect relationships', the sooner you can move on.

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

The weekend press were also among the worst offenders for publishing errors, L. Curtis Perry pointed this out in his book, but I've been over this before too.

[Ben]

“the article you refer to makes it quite clear that the principle source was Kennedy”

Yes.

Well done.

And the relevance of this is…? That’s right - some confused nonsense about ME changing Kennedy with Lewis in imaginary accordance with what “suits” my argument “best”. The Star identified the phenomenon of women parrotting an "oh murder" account. They would not have been aware of the true author of the account being parroted because we know Lewis didn’t speak to the press, remember? All they knew was that the account supplied to them by Kennedy was being bandied about by other women in various altered forms, prompting them to notice that it was being plagiarized. What they didn’t know, and could not have known in the absence of Lewis, was that Kennedy was herself a plagiarizer of Lewis’s account, albeit a more successful one than the other “half a dozen women” (Roney? Daily News woman?). Is it fair or logical to attach any blame to the Star for failing to distinguish the "parrottee" from the "parroters"? No, because they were not even aware of the former.

Now please, in future, try to figure out this fairly obvious stuff before “amusing” yourself, highly irrationally and without just cause, at my expense.

“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”

No, you’re not “reading me right”, and no, I’m not being “vague”. I’m saying that the above is an inconsistency among many that point towards the conclusion that “he was lying about Astrachan & Kelly”. And yes, it s.”

“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 I don’t want to “let it drop”. I want to go round and round and in repetitive circles on this subject and ensure that Hutchbook - oops! – I mean Casebook, is swamped with never-ending Hutchinson debates. So if, for instance, I remind you that I have provided the proof to the satisfaction of anyone who has taken the time to familiarise themselves properly with the material under discussion, would that do it? Would that guarantee the continued domination of Hutchinson debates – long-winded, rousing, intense ones that last 250 pages?

“It was peripheral because no questions were made about the incident. Macdonald was more interested in the 'Britannia-man", and the "loiterer".”

Re-think this immediately.

You’re suggesting that MacDonald was more interested in a couple who had apparently nothing to do with Kelly; more interested in a loiterer who had apparently nothing to do with Kelly, but had no interest whatsoever in a man who was reportedly in Kelly’s company on the night of her murder? Guess again.

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

Nope.

Absolutely nothing of the sort.

I’m afraid that’s a brand new, very eccentric idea conjured up by you just now in the hope that it might lessen the extraordinary nature of the “coincidental” similarity between Hutchinson’s account and the Daily News report. In reality, however, the article makes very clear the fact that a single female witness was responsible for the sighting alluded to in that report. The witness must have been nosey and intrusive in order to observe details of Kelly’s interaction with the “respectably” dressed client – about as nosey and intrusive as Hutchinson must have been when he followed her and closely monitored her dealings with Astrakhan man. Coincidence?

“We are dealing with East Enders Ben, I can't see many being "squeaky clean"…”

Interesting generalisation there.

Can’t see you making too many East End chums with that one.

“Have you ever attempted to justify why any Trade paper could not publish equally accurate stories, just because they were a Trade paper?”

I think you’ll find that was never my point, so no “justification” necessary there. I never even suggested that the MA’s booze-endorsed nature had anything to do with their error-ridden reporting of the Kelly murder, but it could have had something to do with their failure to obtain accurate, up-to-date information of the type enjoyed by the other, more mainstream newspapers. I can’t think of a better reason for the latter publishing Hutchinson’s full account and NAME on the 14th November, while the Morning Advertiser still laboured under the impression that his name had been suppressed to preserve his safety (wrong), and that it was conclusively proved that Kelly was seen in Ringers on the night of her death (wrong).

Whatever the truth of the matter, they were out of the loop for some reason, and personally, I’m sticking to mine. Sally has dealt with the “trade versus non-trade” issue most admirably, and there we will leave that issue.

“Name any mainstream researcher who holds the same beliefs, and who places as much faith in this questionable tabloid as you do.”

My views on the Star are as mainstream as they come, unluckily for you. Pretty much everyone accepts that they had their faults, and perhaps had their agenda, but they also had their qualities, particularly when it came to independent investigation, as opposed to relying on press agencies. The notion that they must wear the black hats at al times is an obscenely narrow-minded view espoused by you and Kelvin McKenzie. Nobody else.

“Isaacs was arrested for stealing a watch on Dec. 6th, a full month after the murder.

Bloody Isaacs again!

Leave the dratted thing alone.

Isaacs was arrested for stealing a coat, for which he received a prison sentence and, accordingly, an alibi for the Kelly murder. He was later arrested for stealing a watch.

That’s it.

And that’s you done with Isaacs for this thread.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

...it would be very, very specific, especially if person A was an “associate of the deceased”, and person B a “respectably dressed” client. The odds against that precise sequence of events occurring twice in one night, involving precisely the same generic characters on both occasions, are astronomical.

Can I ask you, Ben, when you speak of "precisely the same generic characters", just how "precise" characters are we speaking of?

We have "an associate of the deceased", which would basically mean somebody who knew Kelly. By the looks at the very least.
So, how many people would have known her to at least that extent in the East End? One hundred? Two? Five hundred - she had an "outgoing" job, to say the least, she drank at the pubs, associated with people, Dew knew her by name and looks, etcetera. That´s rather a massive group!

The next one is the number of men who could be regarded as "respectably dressed", as you put it, interestingly enough with quotation marks (it does not appear in both versions). I would argue that respectably dressed would be a description of any man who wore whole, clean, not too cheap clothes. You can be quite respectably dressed without goldchains, jewels, astrakhan collars and spats. I posted a number of quotations before, speaking of respectably dressed men - apparently they were around in numbers.
So here´s the next massive group of people.

We have potentially a number that ranges in the thousands when we combine both groups. So how does that make the four described parties representing "precisely the same generic characters"?
To me, that description seems to describe people that were extremely alike.

But we know from the outset that the "associates" were one man and one woman! "Precisely the same generic character", Ben?

I was out walking the neighbours dog half an hour ago. I took a forty minute walk, and during that time, I met three neigbours and at least five or six people walking their dogs. Three of these dogs were Alsacians.

See what I´m getting at? If we were to describe as broad a character as three neighbours (Finn, the economist, 40 years something, big, bulky, Matilda, the schoolteacher, perhaps 35, thin, chatty and Karl-Åke, the retired electrician, close to 70, tal, lean, always happy) as being of "precisely the same generic character", we would be on very thin ice. We would be describing wildly different persons, and they would belong to a group of perhaps a hundred people who I would immediately be able to identify as neighbours of mine.
As for the Alsacian dogs, well they come in many sizes and colours and moods and...

Being posters on Casebook, Ben, you and I are "precisely the same generic character" in that respect.
Just how like does that make us?

If you had had a chimney sweep and a one-legged pirate, you would have had a case, but you don´t. Let´s save terms like these for where they belong and can serve a purpose.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

What did I say? We've done this. There's an entire thread devoted to Morning Advertiser squabbling; I'm pretty sure nobody wants to see it again.

I'm damned sure I don't.

Why you are so intent of regurgitating it all is beyond me.

Well, here we go again introducing another assumption you cannot establish.

Oh don't be silly, Jon, of course I can establish it and it isn't an assumption. R.F. White was an advertising agency based on Fleet Street. It's a fact. I'm afraid.

But surely you know this, since you were the person who provided a page from their mystery publication? No?

By the way, what's your source? Not going to say? Oh well then...

I don't think you're in a position to be accusing anybody of 'ducking and weaving'

[Sally]

Bloody Isaacs again!

Leave the dratted thing alone.

Isaacs was arrested for stealing a coat, for which he received a prison sentence and, accordingly, an alibi for the Kelly murder. He was later arrested for stealing a watch.

That’s it.

Absolutely, Ben.

What's he doing here? Flimsy 'circumstantial' evidence aside, I don't see how he can have been Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man - and that being the case, what's the point of trying to insert him into Kelly's last hours???

Baffling.

[Abby Normal]

Can I ask you, Ben, when you speak of "precisely the same generic characters", just how "precise" characters are we speaking of?

We have "an associate of the deceased", which would basically mean somebody who knew Kelly. By the looks at the very least.
So, how many people would have known her to at least that extent in the East End? One hundred? Two? Five hundred - she had an "outgoing" job, to say the least, she drank at the pubs, associated with people, Dew knew her by name and looks, etcetera. That´s rather a massive group!

The next one is the number of men who could be regarded as "respectably dressed", as you put it, interestingly enough with quotation marks (it does not appear in both versions). I would argue that respectably dressed would be a description of any man who wore whole, clean, not too cheap clothes. You can be quite respectably dressed without goldchains, jewels, astrakhan collars and spats. I posted a number of quotations before, speaking of respectably dressed men - apparently they were around in numbers.
So here´s the next massive group of people.

We have potentially a number that ranges in the thousands when we combine both groups. So how does that make the four described parties representing "precisely the same generic characters"?
To me, that description seems to describe people that were extremely alike.

But we know from the outset that the "associates" were one man and one woman! "Precisely the same generic character", Ben?

I was out walking the neighbours dog half an hour ago. I took a forty minute walk, and during that time, I met three neigbours and at least five or six people walking their dogs. Three of these dogs were Alsacians.

See what I´m getting at? If we were to describe as broad a character as three neighbours (Finn, the economist, 40 years something, big, bulky, Matilda, the schoolteacher, perhaps 35, thin, chatty and Karl-Åke, the retired electrician, close to 70, tal, lean, always happy) as being of "precisely the same generic character", we would be on very thin ice. We would be describing wildly different persons, and they would belong to a group of perhaps a hundred people who I would immediately be able to identify as neighbours of mine.
As for the Alsacian dogs, well they come in many sizes and colours and moods and...

Being posters on Casebook, Ben, you and I are "precisely the same generic character" in that respect.
Just how like does that make us?

If you had had a chimney sweep and a one-legged pirate, you would have had a case, but you don´t. Let´s save terms like these for where they belong and can serve a purpose.

The best,
Fisherman

hi fish
this whole debate reminds me of when they found a box a few years back that had " jesus, son of Joseph,brother of james" written on it. at first it was pretty much blown off that it could be THE Jesus because the argument was that those were three of the most common jewish names so there most be a huge amount of men named Jesus who had those other characteristics. but then when the experts really took a hard look at it and the stats guys crunched the numbers it was determined that actually it could have only been a handful of Jesus's with that father and brother. apparently even common identifiers increase exponentially once you move past two. its kind of like physics when trying to calculate the motions, speeds etc of bodies acting on each other gravitationally. its fairly simple wih two, but when you try to do it with three it becomes dam near impossible.

specifically, the phrase "met the murdered woman Kelly" and the same sequence of events? seems like there is more of a connection there than not, no?

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Ben,

I read your posts for the sheer enjoyment of it.

Yours truly, another Hutchbook Dodo,

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

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.

"Everybody" who has read the text will appreciate that there can be no other sane explanation to the obvious one - that Astrakhan offered Kelly the money she was desperately seeking (according to Hutchinson's account) in exchange for sex. We exclude the alternatives because, as we've discovered, they are palpably ludicrous to the point of being impossibly so. I confidently rule them out, and invite those of sound mind and discernment to do the same, thereafter to recognise that both the Daily News man and Astrakhan offered Kelly money.

There is no mentioning of money, end of story.

So if a woman emerges from the sea, and there is no "mention" of salt or wetness on her body, would it be presumptuous, in your view, to conclude that both were present? This is the sort of silliness we're compelled to resort to when we use pedantry as a means of skirting round the obvious. I have illustrated - again, with humour as opposed to expressions of intense exasperation - that it is ludicrous to envisage the expensively-attired Astrakhan man paying for a prostitute with any other commodity than money, and a discerning commentator rejects the ludicrous. Simple as.

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.

If my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle. It's that sort of reasoning again, by the looks of it, Fisherman! The Daily News account is almost certainly the result of fabrication or vast, vast confusion. The alleged encounter didn't happen on either corner for the simple reason that it didn't happen at all, in all overwhelming probability. Same with Hutchinson's discredited account, in my opinion (no challenges on that point, please. I know you think otherwise, but as you’ll appreciate, this isn't a "discredited or not" thread). Two independent witnesses inventing an encounter at one of the Dorset Street corners were unlikely to have been choosy about which.

"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"

If she already had "some money", she would have been looking for "more money" and would surely have said so. The important, relevant point is that both sources have Kelly on the streets looking for money. We have no idea how much money Kelly actually had on her in both cases (assuming for hilarity's sake that both accounts were true), and she could easily have been lying about having no money.

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

It's an extremely useful point insofar as it belongs in the extremely specific chain of events related in the Daily News and, identically, by Hutchinson a few days later.

The Daily News says that the man was "respectably dressed", and one could be respectably dressed without showing off any affluence.

But one cannot be affluently dressed in white tie and shirt with Astrakhan coat without being respectably dressed. There is irrefutable congruity, therefore, inasmuch as both clients were respectably dressed, and there is no schism at all between the Daily News and Hutchinson on this point. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Not a word is mentioned about money or any other compensation for sex.

There doesn't need to be, because that is irrefutably what happened, and it would be deeply, deeply weird if a truthful Hutchinson found it necessary to narrate the stinkingly obvious.

“1. The witness that saw Kelly on Thursday parted ways with her instead of hanging on to her.”

Well, no, not really.

She must have hung around in order to register the nature of the interaction between Kelly and this respectably dressed man. In fact, she would have done more than hang around – she would have been snooping fairly intrusively, just as Hutchinson did according to his account. Highly unusual behaviour, and yet unique to Hutchinson and this mystery witness.

“2. Kelly reportedly brought a man to her lodgings. How is that remarkable - a prostitute taking a man back to her lodgings?”

Not remarkable at all, unless it didn’t involve an offer of money from that man. In that case, it would be remarkable in the extreme.

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

Nah.

For accuracy’s sake, let’s do the list as it was done first time by Sally, only we’re adding to it (additions in bold):

1. Kelly meets somebody known to her at the corner of Dorset Street
2. Kelly and A.N. Other have a conversation to the effect that Kelly has no money.
3. Kelly and A.N. Other part ways.
4. Kelly is observed by A.N. Other to be accosted by a 'well-dressed' man
5. A. N. Other observes said 'well-dressed' man offer Kelly money - Fabulous! The answer to her prayers!
6. A.N. Other observes Kelly and the man go back to Kelly's lodgings.
7. A.N. Other engages in overtly curious intrusive monitoring of Kelly’s meeting with a presumed client.
8. Kelly is not seen again until her death.
9. A.N. Other, or the pressman recording her, used the phrases “met the murdered woman” and “murdered woman Kelly”.

All of the above applies to Hutchinson.

“Can I ask you, Ben, when you speak of "precisely the same generic characters", just how "precise" characters are we speaking of?”

Precise enough to make it deeply unusual for an identical sequence of events to play out twice in one night, and involve exactly the same characters: Kelly, a friend/associate of hers, and a respectably-dressed client. Please bear my earlier point in mind – I’m not suggesting that any aspect to it is “odd” in isolation (except the unusual interest exhibited by both A.N. Other and Hutchinson with regard to the well/respectably dressed man), but when they’re all strung together into a very precise and specific narrative, we can reasonably kiss farewell to any consideration that the two sources are unrelated.

“So, how many people would have known her to at least that extent in the East End?”

Not relevant, Fisherman.

The question you ask yourself is: how many people who knew Kelly had a brief, night-time meeting with her in which she relates her lack of money at the corner of Dorset Street before moving off and encountering a respectably glad man and taking him home (with the acquaintance nosily monitoring the whole thing)? Answer – just two according to a largely bogus press account, and a near-identical discredited account that followed a couple of days later.

“I posted a number of quotations before, speaking of respectably dressed men - apparently they were around in numbers.”

No, apparently not.

Apparently, they were as rare as rocking horse poo in that district at that time.

“I was out walking the neighbours dog half an hour ago. I took a forty minute walk, and during that time, I met three neigbours and at least five or six people walking their dogs. Three of these dogs were Alsacians.

See what I´m getting at?”

No.

But please don’t try again!

Hope your walk was an enjoyable one.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

If Lawende was able to record some pretty specific details of the man's clothing, such as a reddish neckerchief and a cloth cap with a sailor-like peak of the same colour, it is only reasonable that he'd have registered a blotchy face and ginger 'tache at the same time had the man been sporting same. If Blotchy and Sailorman were one and the same, therefore, I conclude that Blotchy's blotchiness can't have been that conspicuous, ditto his carrottiness.

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.

Okay, but on the one condition that you tell Jon off for doing precisely the same thing with the Star, who showed more investigative initiative than the MA, despite how naughty and Maverick they might have been. While you're at it, don't forget to give him hell for the damnable cheekiness of his accusation in post #928 that you were being "inconsistent" (as you unquestionably would have done to me had I written that post ).

Shyte-stirrer, moi?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

hi fish
this whole debate reminds me of when they found a box a few years back that had " jesus, son of Joseph,brother of james" written on it. at first it was pretty much blown off that it could be THE Jesus because the argument was that those were three of the most common jewish names so there most be a huge amount of men named Jesus who had those other characteristics. but then when the experts really took a hard look at it and the stats guys crunched the numbers it was determined that actually it could have only been a handful of Jesus's with that father and brother. apparently even common identifiers increase exponentially once you move past two. its kind of like physics when trying to calculate the motions, speeds etc of bodies acting on each other gravitationally. its fairly simple wih two, but when you try to do it with three it becomes dam near impossible.

specifically, the phrase "met the murdered woman Kelly" and the same sequence of events? seems like there is more of a connection there than not, no?

I still say, Abby, that neighbours, aquaintances, Alsacian dogs and nicely dressed men ARE rather common things.

Jesus was a lot more uncommon.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

If Lawende was able to record some pretty specific details of the man's clothing, such as a reddish neckerchief and a cloth cap with a sailor-like peak of the same colour, it is only reasonable that he'd have registered a blotchy face and ginger 'tache

A. Blotches on the face wouldn't be particularly noticeable in a fleeting nocturnal encounter at a distance.

B. On account of their size, peaked caps and neckerchiefs are easy to spot from afar. A moustache - especially a carroty one - would be far less likely to register under such circumstances... Tumblety's excepted.

[Sam Flynn]

Okay, but on the one condition that you tell Jon off for doing precisely the same thing with the Star

The Star hath its virtues too, Ben. Even there, of course, I apply the wheat/chaff principle whenever I can, and lard it with pragmatism.

While you're at it, don't forget to give him hell for the damnable cheekiness of his accusation in post #928 that you were being "inconsistent" (as you unquestionably would have done to me had I written that post ).

I didn't read post #928, so I won't respond to it after the event. However, I will make the general (and impersonal) observation that the wheat/chaff principle, coupled with pragmatism, might give the appearance of inconsistency, when it isn't. Call it analysis, deductive reasoning, whatever... but it's not inconsistency.

Inconsistency comes when one accepts already-inconsistent sources in practically their "vanilla" form, without de-chaffing them first.

[Fisherman]

Ben: Hi Fisherman,

"Everybody" who has read the text will appreciate that there can be no other sane explanation to the obvious one - that Astrakhan offered Kelly the money she was desperately seeking (according to Hutchinson's account) in exchange for sex. We exclude the alternatives because, as we've discovered, they are palpably ludicrous to the point of being impossibly so. I confidently rule them out, and invite those of sound mind and discernment to do the same, thereafter to recognise that both the Daily News man and Astrakhan offered Kelly money.

I very strongly advice against inferring that those who do not agree with you are not of sound mind.

I will once again - but ONLY once again! - tell you that I too accept that the best suggestion is one of a sex transaction, BUT...! It CAN NOT be excluded that another scenario could be what we have.
It would be intellectually corrupt to rule out any other possibility, and I have suggested a number of possible options that you can dislike as much as you want to - but NEVER rule out.

So if a woman emerges from the sea, and there is no "mention" of salt or wetness on her body, would it be presumptuous, in your view, to conclude that both were present?

That is not a functioning comparison. In that case, we KNOW the facts, in the case at hand we do not. It would only compare if we suspected on good grounds that the woman had been in the sea.

If my auntie had bollocks, she'd be my uncle. It's that sort of reasoning again, by the looks of it, Fisherman! The Daily News account is almost certainly ...

"Almost certainly" will not do. Especially not if people disagree about that. To me, it is a noteworthy coincidence, and that´s all.

If she already had "some money", she would have been looking for "more money" and would surely have said so.

And that is ... "almost certain"? Or?

The important, relevant point is that both sources have Kelly on the streets looking for money

Yes, yes! That is exactly the thing! That is the only relevant point, Ben. Sadly, though, the point in the list said that she had no money - which is a different thing from looking for money. Many people who have some money look for money. Beggars on the street don´t stop begging when the first coin lands on the bottom of their mug, do they?

I am not gasinsaying that Kelly in both stories asked for money. I am gainsaying the faulty statement on Sally´s behalf that Kelly in both stories claimed to have NO money.

The list Sally compiled was presented in order to point to how very similar the two stories were. That is a fair thing to do. But it is not a fair thing to do to present similiarities that were never there!
Kelly did NOT say that she had no money in the Hutchinson story.
There was NO mentioning about Astrakhan man offering Kelly money.

These claims are demonstrably false, I´m afraid. And they accordingly lower the credibility of that list.
It was always like that, and like that it will always be.

It's an extremely useful point insofar as it belongs in the extremely specific chain of events related in the Daily News and, identically, by Hutchinson a few days later.

I would stretch to "fair", Ben - never to "extremely useful". To reach that verdict, it will have to be something more significant than two people parting. We all part, all the time.

But one cannot be affluently dressed in white tie and shirt with Astrakhan coat without being respectably dressed. There is irrefutable congruity, therefore, inasmuch as both clients were respectably dressed, and there is no schism at all between the Daily News and Hutchinson on this point. Quite the reverse, in fact.

I never suggested any schism. The description could point to the exact same clothing. The problem is that it could also point to totally different clothing. The field of "respectably" clad men is extremely wide.

There doesn't need to be, because that is irrefutably what happened, and it would be deeply, deeply weird if a truthful Hutchinson found it necessary to narrate the stinkingly obvious.

You are wrong. It is not irrefutably what happened - it is our best guess, but all guesses, from the worst to the best one, are guesses nevertheless. Whether you get worked up about it or not is of no consequence to this. The core of the matter remains, just the same. I could agree with you that it is stinkingly obvious that it was sex for money. We could all agree, every person on Mother Earth. That would not change the facts in any way. And the facts are that there is no mentioning of money at all in Hutchinsons story.

Let me simplify the matter for you. Lets take the issue whether the earth is round!

We both know that it is. Right?

Here´s an Ogden Nash quotation for you:

"I think that I shall never see
a billboard lovely as a tree
Indeed, unless the billboards fall,
I´ll never see a tree at all!"

Does that quotation say anything about the world being round? No.

Does that nullify the world being round? No.

The fact that the quotation does not say that the world is round, does therefore not mean that it is not.

It´s actually stinkingly obvious that the world is round. We both KNOW that it is.

But it does not say in the quotation that the world is round, does it?

The exact same thing applies in Sallys point. She says that it is said in both versions that Kelly was offered money by her counterpart.

Just like the issue with the world being round, we may have an idea about the extent to which it applies that Kelly WAS offered money by Astrakhan.

But that has nothing to do with the question we are asking: Was it mentioned in the text?

No, it was not. There is not a word about money in that text.

That is how the equation is solved - not by speaking about something completely different, like the likelihood that the conversation was about money.

I hope that helped and that you are less frustrated after having read it. And I also hope that we can drop the question whether it was said that money was offered to Kelly by Astrakhan man. It is a proven fact that no such offer is mentioned. It does therefore not belong to a list of similarities.

Well, no, not really.

She must have hung around in order to register the nature of the interaction between Kelly and this respectably dressed man. In fact, she would have done more than hang around – she would have been snooping fairly intrusively, just as Hutchinson did according to his account. Highly unusual behaviour, and yet unique to Hutchinson and this mystery witness.

... and THEN they parted ways. I offered no time perspective, Ben. I only offered the obvious fact that the liasion was not cemented.

Not remarkable at all, unless it didn’t involve an offer of money from that man. In that case, it would be remarkable in the extreme.

How about "You can have my vest chain for sex - it´s gold!". Or anything else that was not money but still useful enough to purchase sex for? Or - as I said before - maybe it was not about prostitution at all.
According to a poster out here - no names! - bringing a blotchy-faced man to her room, arm in arm, laughing and singing, was apparently not any stinkingly obvious affair of sex for money. It was in fact very unlikely that this was so - according to the self same source.

I´m skipping the list - we all know it is faulty.

I’m not suggesting that any aspect to it is “odd” in isolation (except the unusual interest exhibited by both A.N. Other and Hutchinson with regard to the well/respectably dressed man), but when they’re all strung together into a very precise and specific narrative...

But it is not a "very precise and specific narrative", Ben. That is only in your head. There are many differences and the likenesses can all be very easily explained.

Not relevant, Fisherman.

The question you ask yourself is: how many people who knew Kelly had a brief, night-time meeting with her in which she relates her lack of money at the corner of Dorset Street before moving off and encountering a respectably glad man and taking him home (with the acquaintance nosily monitoring the whole thing)? Answer – just two according to a largely bogus press account, and a near-identical discredited account that followed a couple of days later.

It´s not "the" corner of Dorset Street - it´s "a" corner of Dorset Street. And it would be a lot more odd if one of the witnesses had met her, plying her trade, in Oxford Street.
She WAS short on money, we KNOW that. Why would she NOT ask for it?
She WAS a prostitute, we KNOW that. Why would she not encounter men in that line of work? And if the associate in the Daily News was another prostitute, what would she think was "respectable"? A jacket?
The prostitutes in Millers Court DID take clients home. Why would she not do so with Astrakhan man? She did so with Blotchy, who I happen to think was a "stinkingly obvious" punter (which is not to say that I think that it is a proven thing, only that it seems a very fair bet to me).

No, apparently not.

Apparently, they were as rare as rocking horse poo in that district at that time.

You guess. You don´t know.

No.

I would have thought it was stinkingly obvious.

The very best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

K.i.s.s.

Here's a challenge, folks. Instead of responding line-by-line to everything in a given post, why not just pick out the most "important" two or three points and respond to them?

The way this is going, I'll either crash my browser or run out of RAM before I scroll to the bottom of the page