If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....

[Phil Carter]

All,

A thought to ponder.
If Mary Kelly was a prostitute as claimed on her behalf...
Then why, when Hutchinson saw her talking and walking with her next client..would she ask Hutchinson for money when she knew that the very person next to her would readily supply the dosh required?

The argument that "then she wouldn't have to do anything with the man" is weak. She was a prostitute..desperate for money. That comes first. And a tanner (sixpenny..6d) from Hutchinson would hardly have stopped her turning another trick....after all she is a desperate prostitute so far behind in her rent..she would need every shekel she could lay her hands on.

Something to think about?
Thoughts?


Phil

[wigngown]

Phil,
If we accept that Hutchinson was telling the truth.
Interesting thought nonetheless,
Best regards.

[MrBarnett]

Didn't the request for sixpence take place before Kelly encountered the other man?

[Rosella]

But Mary hadn't met Astrakhan man when she saw Hutch on his way back from Romford and asked him for sixpence, had she? Admittedly Hutchinson saw him standing on the corner and he came up to Mary almost immediately as she moved away from Hutchinson, but she wasn't to know that. I've always taken "Can you lend me sixpence? " to mean, "if you've got the money( fee) I've got the time" if you know what I mean, a euphemism so to speak!

[MysterySinger]

Kind of "I'm yours for a tanner"? She must have been good, but then she did have her own room.

[Jon Guy]

Didn't the request for sixpence take place before Kelly encountered the other man?

Yes.
Kelly`s encounter with Hutchinson was before she met Mr A.

[Phil Carter]

But Mary hadn't met Astrakhan man when she saw Hutch on his way back from Romford and asked him for sixpence, had she? Admittedly Hutchinson saw him standing on the corner and he came up to Mary almost immediately as she moved away from Hutchinson, but she wasn't to know that. I've always taken "Can you lend me sixpence? " to mean, "if you've got the money( fee) I've got the time" if you know what I mean, a euphemism so to speak!

Hi Rosella

Ahh. .you have read my mind. You see. If Hutchinson was being offered a trick by Mary the prostitute, for 6d, then dear old Hutchinson's testimony is again shown to be flawed. By dint of the fact that he didn't speak the truth. Because admitting he was being asked for 6d in return for a turn, and by dint of him refusing because of lack of money, he is hardly likely to cover up the fact. .It isn't HE that is soliciting HER, so he is lawfully safe. He has..in fact. .nothing to hide on this point. So why not just say it in his statement?


If Mary Kelly WAS a prostitute.... she knew where the money would come from anyway. .her next trick. So why ask to borrow it with Mr. Trick seconds away?

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil,
If we accept that Hutchinson was telling the truth.
Interesting thought nonetheless,
Best regards.

And therein lies the crux. IF........


Phil

[Jon Guy]

So why ask to borrow it with Mr. Trick seconds away?

Where in Hutchinson`s statement does it show that Kelly had acknowledged the presence of Astrakhan Man before she spoke to Hutchinson ?

[Phil Carter]

Where in Hutchinson`s statement does it show that Kelly had acknowledged the presence of Astrakhan Man before she spoke to Hutchinson ?

Hi Jon,

I readily accept the point you are making.. but look at where she met Hutchinson and where she met Astraken. Logic tells me it was in the very same small area.
No..In his statement it doesn't show she acknowledged such a thing. But likewise it doesn't show it didn't happen seconds later either. Therefore. .vicinity is the question.


Phil

[MysterySinger]

Hi Rosella

Ahh. .you have read my mind. You see. If Hutchinson was being offered a trick by Mary the prostitute, for 6d, then dear old Hutchinson's testimony is again shown to be flawed. By dint of the fact that he didn't speak the truth. Because admitting he was being asked for 6d in return for a turn, and by dint of him refusing because of lack of money, he is hardly likely to cover up the fact. .It isn't HE that is soliciting HER, so he is lawfully safe. He has..in fact. .nothing to hide on this point. So why not just say it in his statement?


If Mary Kelly WAS a prostitute.... she knew where the money would come from anyway. .her next trick. So why ask to borrow it with Mr. Trick seconds away?

Phil

Yes but she needed 29 shillings for her rent.

[Phil Carter]

Yes but she needed 29 shillings for her rent.

Hi Mystery Singer,

Yes. But that isn't on her mind is it? Paying her rent when 29 bob in arrears..at that time of night..she'd have to turn tricks every 10 mins to pay for the rent the next day. No?

What I am questioning here is Hutchinson's statement. Hence it is on a Hutchinson thread. But to examine it.. One must..as we do now. .talk of Kelly...The prostitute.

Thanks for the thoughts. ☺


Phil

[Rosella]

Maybe Mary quite fancied Hutchinson and, if he had a shilling she would have been quite willing to have gone with him, home out of the cold with perhaps a visit to a pub on the way. There's no guarantee that she even saw A man when she was joshing Hutch about lending her a tanner. When Im talking to someone my eyes don't dart all over the place and I doubt Mary's did either!

[caz]

Hi Phil,

Hope you don't mind me saying, but you may be reading a little too much into this.

Kelly's significant other had recently buggered off, she was behind with her rent and overly fond of the drink, and may have been expecting the tally man's call the very next morning. People used to pawn their Sunday best on a Monday to help them through the week, then use their end of week wages to get the clothes back in time for Sunday again. An extra tanner would have been good news for Kelly, earned or unearned; borrowing as much from a friend the next best thing. She would worry about paying it back after she'd had that drink or given the landlord a modest sweetener. So for me, what Hutch said about it has a ring of truth, whether she was actually begging, borrowing or offering a service for that sixpence. If he made it all up, something similar could well have happened between the two of them on some other occasion.

As luck would have it, when Hutch couldn't oblige, Flash Harry materialised and the rest is ripper history - or myth if you prefer. Hutch said he was surprised to see Kelly picking up such a flashy dresser, so it's not like she would have been expecting to find a better beer ticket than Hutch on every corner. She would have called it her lucky night.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Hope you don't mind me saying, but you may be reading a little too much into this.

Kelly's significant other had recently buggered off, she was behind with her rent and overly fond of the drink, and may have been expecting the tally man's call the very next morning. People used to pawn their Sunday best on a Monday to help them through the week, then use their end of week wages to get the clothes back in time for Sunday again. An extra tanner would have been good news for Kelly, earned or unearned; borrowing as much from a friend the next best thing. She would worry about paying it back after she'd had that drink or given the landlord a modest sweetener. So for me, what Hutch said about it has a ring of truth, whether she was actually begging, borrowing or offering a service for that sixpence. If he made it all up, something similar could well have happened between the two of them on some other occasion.

As luck would have it, when Hutch couldn't oblige, Flash Harry materialised and the rest is ripper history - or myth if you prefer. Hutch said he was surprised to see Kelly picking up such a flashy dresser, so it's not like she would have been expecting to find a better beer ticket than Hutch on every corner. She would have called it her lucky night.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

No ..I dont mind you saying it... I was pondering about it. And asked for thoughts..yours are equally welcome. :-)

What if I'm NOT reading too much into it? Thats what I am asking you to consider.. not that it is a no hoper before we start. So what if we read it the OTHER way.. not the "nothings wrong with Hutchinson's statement" way?

You see.. all I am doing is something that has been done many times before re Hutchinson. Examining his truthfulness..and thereby the veracity of his comments in this part of his statement..as has been done before for other parts of his statement. Many think it dodgy anyway.

best wishes

Phil