Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
    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
    Hi,

    1. Why was the source produced after the inquest on the very same day?

    2. What is the function of the source?

    3. What is the tendency in the source produced by Abberline after the inquest on the same
    day?

    Regards, Pierre
    Last edited by Pierre; 06-17-2016, 12:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Garry Wroe
    replied
    Originally posted by miss marple View Post
    Did Hutchinson really walk from Romford. I remember an article a few years ago in The Whitechapel Journal that suggested he spend all his money getting pissed at The Romford Arms 3 Heneage St.
    Hutchinson was quoted in at least one newspaper as having stated that he visited Romford, Essex. This, of course, doesn't prove that he was in Romford on the night under scrutiny, nor that he walked from there back to the East End, but it does undermine any speculation that Hutchinson spent the night in a local drinking den.

    Leave a comment:


  • jason_c
    replied
    Many of the explanations above are reasonable answers. What we also have to remember is that Kelly was a drunken prostitute with quite serious money issues. She had as much right to chance her arm with Hutchinson(either innocently or not) as any modern day street beggar/occasional sex worker. I dont think it unreasonable to equate Kelly in 1888 with homeless substance abusers we see on the streets today. Many are not averse to both begging and doing a trick.

    Im also quite willing to believe that Hutchinson was putting the "best spin" on the retelling of his encounter with Kelly. Little would surprise me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    There is always the thought that he mentioned the loan of sixpence to cover himself, as he may have been married?

    Pat.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
    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
    I think what we can gather from Marys history, as it has been provided, is that she was a full time prostitute at one point, while working indoors, at a brothel. Based on the fact that she has been arrears in rent at 2 separate locations since then leads one to surmise that she didn't favor doing this work on the street. Much in the same way a modern call girl wouldn't work on the streets since the perception is that the women of the streets are far below a call girl in perceived status, and as such, of lesser value.

    What we can gather from George Hutchinsons statement is that he wishes for the authorities to believe he was Wideawake Hat Man...something that no other witness or fact discovered since that statement was made has been able to authenticate.

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • miss marple
    replied
    Did Hutchinson really walk from Romford. I remember an article a few years ago in The Whitechapel Journal that suggested he spend all his money getting pissed at The Romford Arms 3 Heneage St. That seems more logical. If he was pissed, his detailed description of Mr Astrakan is quite remarkable!

    Miss Marple

    Leave a comment:


  • The Snapper
    replied
    I could believe that Hutchinson was indeed asked for sixpence if only as a cute ploy by Kelly to eliminate him as a potential customer. However I struggle with the context he puts his story in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Hi Caz,

    But what about his description of Flash Harry? I'd be surprised if you had the same sneaking suspicion that this was contrived to dupe the unwary (including Abberline The Unwary) into thinking his story had a ring of truth. You have always argued in the past that this description by rights should have reduced any 1888 listener with the brains he was born with to a helpless giggling heap of incredulity.
    Not quite; I've argued in the past that when taken out of context, an 1888 listener would, in all likelihood, have been reduced to such a heap after being subjected to the Astrakhan description (and story). I've suggested that Hutchinson's description might have been bought into initially because the 1888 police, like everyone else from the period, expected the ripper to have been something wildly out-of-the-ordinary in terms of appearance and habits.

    In addition, Abberline was in a sticky spot as far as pressure from his superiors went. If he dismissed Hutchinson out of hand, he risked a potential trail going cold, however "iffy" it might have appeared on the surface. There was no time for such leisurely contemplations as "Hutch, this seems like so much bollocks to me - I won't get my men to pursue your suspect until after we've gone all the way to Romford and investigated your story". As James Tully noted in his book (which promoted an entirely different suspect), Abberline's initial endorsement of Hutchinson was "not significant" as the police were prepared, at that stage, to "grasp at any straw"

    All the best,
    Ben

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion that the neatly packaged, neatly signposted sequence events was contrived by Hutchinson to dupe the unwary into thinking that his story "has a ring of truth" about it.
    Hi Ben,

    But what about his description of Flash Harry? I'd be surprised if you had the same sneaking suspicion that this was contrived to dupe the unwary (including Abberline The Unwary) into thinking his story had a ring of truth. You have always argued in the past that this description by rights should have reduced any 1888 listener with the brains he was born with to a helpless giggling heap of incredulity.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Interesting thoughts, Phil.

    If Hutchinson told the truth, Kelly's sudden need to procure funds for imminent rent collection was in stark contrast to her earlier antics with Blotchy, which consisted of walking boozily home with a blotchy-faced companion and then singing for over an hour. If such behaviour doesn't exactly indicate financial anxiety - especially in contrast to that of her neighbour, Mary Cox, who was constantly in and out of the court for that reason - would she have suddenly sobered up after tiring of Blotchy and singing, and reminded herself of her plight? Or was she more likely to have helped Blotchy with his ale pail and fallen into a stupour? My personal guess would be the latter.

    On the other hand, if Hutchinson was lying (as I rather suspect), it is noteworthy how signposted everything is. Kelly encounters Hutchinson and asks him for money, but he can't oblige, so she leaves, but not without reminding him (us, the police, whoever) that she "must go and look for some money". So just to eradicate any doubt whatsoever, that's why she's on the streets. (*signpost*). After walking a short distance with the intention of finding some money (remember?!), she bumps into a man whose appearance announces that he has carriage-loads of the stuff. Well, of course she's taking this man home - she was low on money, advertised the fact, walked off and quickly found an unlikely resolution to her problem.

    I can't help but have a sneaking suspicion that the neatly packaged, neatly signposted sequence events was contrived by Hutchinson to dupe the unwary into thinking that his story "has a ring of truth" about it.

    But this is offered without the intention of starting another "liar or not" thread!

    All the best,
    Ben

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisGeorge
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    So an impoverished woman behind on her rent wouldn't have bothered trying tap a pal for sixpence, or a flashy dresser for more, if her ex was giving her a bit to be getting on with? Had Barnett coughed up enough to cover her arrears and the next day's food and drink? Don't think he had.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Hi Caz

    Yes you correctly characterize MJK's circumstances. An "unfortunate" indeed. Carry on, Caz. I hope to catch up with you perhaps at the November conference at St. Botolph's Church in Aldgate.

    Best regards

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    So an impoverished woman behind on her rent wouldn't have bothered trying tap a pal for sixpence, or a flashy dresser for more, if her ex was giving her a bit to be getting on with? Had Barnett coughed up enough to cover her arrears and the next day's food and drink? Don't think he had.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Parker_Pyne79
    replied
    What about Joseph Barnett-was he not giving her money?

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    I think we should all consider the fact Hutchinson was most likely lying about the whole event. There are no witnesses to this exchange and Astrakhan man disappeared from the picture when the police and Hutchinson couldn't locate Hutch's fantasy man after a day or so.

    And I will also say that if MJK asked Hutchinson for money, she didn't ask in such an innocent matter. She probably propositioned him and he didn't have the cash so she moved on.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
    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?
    he wasn't hiding anything in this argument. He just wasn't sharing all details. I would think that normal when dealing with something considered sordid by society (outwardly).

    Mike

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X