The Red Handkerchief...

[Wickerman]

Seems strange,if Kelly was attractive enough to engage better paying customers,that by that November she was living in the slum of a one room hovel,up to her neck in debt,and by one account,thinking of ending it all.

Echoing a point made by Ed., anyone with a room to themselves was upper-low-class. Fishman gives some facts and figures on this topic in his "East End 1888".
As Christer also noted, perhaps Kelly's downfall was drink, easy come - easy go. It wasn't that she couldn't earn it, her problem was she couldn't keep it.

It's not a question of his not being able to speak for himself - he clearly could - but of whether he wrote the script.

I was a little shocked at you buying into that Gareth.
The phrase "the murdered woman" was common enough, check out the press articles.
Seriously, ask yourself, why should a liar need to have stolen this phrase (met the murdered woman) to what end? - it doesn't serve any purpose to suggest this, it doesn't make his tale any more believable.
He does claim to have met her, thats the whole point of the story, so why would anyone suggest that using this phrase makes him suspicious? - he met her....what else is he going to say?

What you are looking at Gareth is commonly classed as "faces in the clouds".

Here is another well known example of seeing something that isn't there.

Why is a Fire Engine Red?
Fire-engines have four men and eight wheels.
Eight and four make twelve. Twelve inches in a ruler. Queen
Elizabeth was a ruler. She sailed the high seas. Seas have
fish. Fish have fins. Finns fought the Russians. The Russians
are red. Fire-engines are always rushing. Therefore fire-engines
are red.

These suggestions that Hutchinson must have been inspired by press stories of a bag-carrying bogeyman (but wait....he missed out the all important 'bag' bit), and then use a phrase he recognised from a newspaper story is the same type of disjointed logic as we see in the Why is a Fire Engine Red.

C'mon Gareth, you are better than that.

[harry]

Upper lower class Jon.So then was Cox,Stride and all the other unfortunates with a room upper lower class.Seems to me they have been labelled far less.Kelly was in debt,without work,without a partner,living in a one room slum. A far cry from the West end days.They have been classed as the lowest of the low,both by today's writers and those of 1888.

[GUT]

G'day Harry

But Liz was living in a lodging house at the time of her death, so she had fallen perhaps a little further than MJK, but Mary was not too much netter off.

And while I don't think she was upper lower class, I'm not sure Jon used it in the same sense we use upper middle class today.

[Sally]

Morning Fish,

If we can agree that what applies otherwise would also have applied to Kelly, then we may perhaps also agree that she could have had more customers with better resources than the rest of the women in the series. Nothing dramatic, just enough to procure more customers with a little more money and somewhat better dressed than the average punter.

Yes, I'm sure we can agree that Kelly 'could' have had more customers with better resources than the rest of the women 'in the series', simply by virtue of being younger. Evidently, however, she wasn't doing very well for herself, was she, because she was living in McCarthy's rents, on a street that was infamously notorious for ciminality and depravity - and she was in serious rent arrears to boot. Kelly was, indeed, doing better than some of the other victims, but only by a whisker. To compare, a bed in a lodging house might cost 2/ a week; Kelly's rent was 4/ and she couldn't manage to make that on the streets, young and attractive or not. The only reason that she wasn't looking for a bed in a common lodging house herself was because McCarthy had let the rent arrears slide.

The 'well-dressed man' story appears in the earliest editions of the London press on 10th November oonwards. The story can be found in numerous publications and goes like this:

A female associate of Kelly's sees Kelly at the corner of Dorset Street on Thursday night. Kelly tells her that she has no money [in some versions, she then says that she will do away with herself if she can't get some]. The two part and Kelly walks off. At that moment, a well-dressed man appears, accosts Kelly in the street and the associate hears him offer Kelly money. Kelly and the well-dressed man walk away towards Kelly's lodgings in Millers Court.

Those are the common elements of all the various versions of the story. They are also present in Hutchinson's story told a couple of days later. It is exactly the same story.

That is the point, and it is difficult to get around. Well-dressed men were evidently not a common but [unsurprisingly] a rare sight on Dorset Street and something to be remarked upon - in fact didn't Hutchinson himself say he was surprised to see such a well-dressed man there?

In fact, that's true of all the 'well-dressed man' stories circulating in the press at the time: there is something peculiar about him, he is out of place. This applies whether he's freaking out chestnut sellers, trying to lure Sarah Lewis and friend into a dark alley, or dashing through Mitre Square awash with blood. By the time Hutchinson gave his account of the well-dressed man, he'd already become a bogeyman; and a popular suspect for the Whitechapel murders. The story grew with the telling, it seems.

The original story appeared at an early stage in the wake of Kelly's death, but was superceded by the witness testimony given at the inquest; which became the 'official' version of events. As I've said, we will probably never discover where it originated, but it demonstrably wasn't with Hutchinson I'm afraid.

[Sam Flynn]

I was a little shocked at you buying into that Gareth.
The phrase "the murdered woman" was common enough, check out the press articles.

Indeed, but it's of little consequence. Not a deal-breaker.

What you are looking at Gareth is commonly classed as "faces in the clouds".

I think I'm above that, Jon. And I don't mean "above the clouds"

[Wickerman]

Upper lower class Jon.So then was Cox,Stride and all the other unfortunates with a room upper lower class.Seems to me they have been labelled far less.Kelly was in debt,without work,without a partner,living in a one room slum. A far cry from the West end days.They have been classed as the lowest of the low,both by today's writers and those of 1888.

"Upper low class" is just my tongue-in-cheek way of describing someone who is among the low class, but not the lowest of the low.

At the low end you could live on the streets, or arguably, a step up might be to go to a workhouse.
Above the workhouse was the common lodging-house, some were obviously better than others.
Better still you could be fortunate enough to share a single room with another family, or in some cases several unrelated adults would share a room.
Better than that was to have a complete room to one's self - just like Mary Kelly.
Certainly Kelly was among the low classes but as you can see, she would still have a way to fall to be among the lowest of the low.
None of the other unfortunate victims were so fortunate as Mary.

[Fisherman]

Sally was deliberately joking, I think, Fish.

Sally and I rarely share the same sense of humour, Gareth.

Very rarely, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Morning Fish,

Yes, I'm sure we can agree that Kelly 'could' have had more customers with better resources than the rest of the women 'in the series', simply by virtue of being younger. Evidently, however, she wasn't doing very well for herself, was she, because she was living in McCarthy's rents.

You may have missed the odd clarifying post or two on the topic, Sally. I said that she would be more expensive than Chapman. I never said she could hold on to that money. I also went to great lengths top explain how and why. As did Jon.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

The 'well-dressed man' story appears in the earliest editions of the London press on 10th November oonwards. The story can be found in numerous publications and goes like this:

A female associate of Kelly's sees Kelly at the corner of Dorset Street on Thursday night. Kelly tells her that she has no money [in some versions, she then says that she will do away with herself if she can't get some]. The two part and Kelly walks off. At that moment, a well-dressed man appears, accosts Kelly in the street and the associate hears him offer Kelly money. Kelly and the well-dressed man walk away towards Kelly's lodgings in Millers Court.

1 - Kelly does her business on the streets. Obviously then, this is where male clients tend to accost her.
Nothing special about that.

2 - Kelly is short of money and complains about it, Cox did the same thing, evidently then nothing special here either.

3 - Well dressed men are a frequent enough novelty in the Dorset St. area and are mentioned several times in the papers. Nothing out of the ordinary here.

4 - Kelly takes her business home, she does not serve 'kneetremblers' down dark alley's (apparently). Nothing unusual here either.

Those are the common elements of all the various versions of the story. They are also present in Hutchinson's story told a couple of days later. It is exactly the same story.

The story is similar due to the circumstances being similar. There is only two ways to conduct business. The accosting is the same regardless, then the 'service' is either completed down some back alley, or in a private room.

Well-dressed men were evidently not a common but [unsurprisingly] a rare sight on Dorset Street and something to be remarked upon - in fact didn't Hutchinson himself say he was surprised to see such a well-dressed man there?

NO he didn't.
He said it was unusual to see a well-dressed man IN HER COMPANY, (just for emphasis).
Lets not change statements to suit the theory.

In fact, that's true of all the 'well-dressed man' stories circulating in the press at the time: there is something peculiar about him, he is out of place.

Not at all, this is your imagination working overtime.

By the time Hutchinson gave his account of the well-dressed man, he'd already become a bogeyman; and a popular suspect for the Whitechapel murders. The story grew with the telling, it seems.

There is no doubt the 'well-dressed' man had become the bogey-man over the weeks since the double event. Which only emphasizes why, if Hutchinson was intent on inventing a fictional suspect, would he not keep the pertinent physical details the same. He has a ready-made villain, why change anything?

The press version (Kennedy/Paumier/Ronay) has him with a silk hat, billycock, or high round hat.
But Hutchinson gives him a soft felt hat turned down in the middle.

The press version has him carrying a black bag.
Hutchinson saw a man with a small parcel, with a strap.

So, apart from the approximate age, the moustache, and the approximate height, all very indistinct details, what else do we have?
Then for some inexplicable reason Hutchinson, rather than keep it simple, he adds the Astrachan coat, watch chain, seal, kid gloves, gaiters, horseshoe tie-pin, and ...ethnicity!

And you choose to argue that this demonstrates Hutchinson was copying from the press?

Only in the eyes of the beholder I'm afraid.

[Wickerman]

Indeed, but it's of little consequence. Not a deal-breaker.
I think I'm above that, Jon. And I don't mean "above the clouds"

I think you are too Gareth.
Can you see yourself presenting this hypothesis to a room full of professional investigators in a real murder enquiry?

[Sam Flynn]

Can you see yourself presenting this hypothesis to a room full of professional investigators in a real murder enquiry?

Yup, if I felt cocky enough, and was sufficiently desirous of a slice of the limelight.

[Sam Flynn]

3 - Well dressed men are a frequent enough novelty in the Dorset St. area and are mentioned several times in the papers.

In the wee small hours - really? (Also, isn't a "frequent novelty" a bit of a contradiction in terms? )

[Sam Flynn]

So, apart from the approximate age, the moustache, and the approximate height, all very indistinct details, what else do we have?

... a bunch of other stuff that he could invent with little fear of contradiction.

he adds the Astrachan coat, watch chain, seal, kid gloves, gaiters, horseshoe tie-pin, and ...ethnicity!

...stuff like that.

[Wickerman]

In the wee small hours - really? (Also, isn't a "frequent novelty" a bit of a contradiction in terms? )

Frequent enough to be considered nothing special, but the novelty is when compared to the hundreds of poorly dressed dossers.
Not a contradiction.
Afterall, none of the witnesses suggested a well-dressed man in this part of town was "an unusual sight". This appears to be an urban myth, confined to Casebook, and the reason is wholly apparent.

Yup, if I felt cocky enough, and was sufficiently desirous of a slice of the limelight.

Not Hutchinson's story.

I meant your solution to his story.
Do you think a room full of detectives will take you seriously.

[Sam Flynn]

Not Hutchinson's story.
I meant your solution to his story.
Do you think a room full of detectives will take you seriously.

What - that a man picked up on a story (or stories) that was in the public domain, added his own embellishments, and used it as a means of getting at least some recognition in his dreary life?

It's hardly science-fiction, is it. After all, the Ripper case had had its fair share of attention- and thrill-seekers before the 12th Nov, so it's at least feasible that Hutchinson was doing the same.