If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....

[Pierre]

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

[c.d.]

I will go out on a limb here but for me it has always been better to have two dollars in my pocket than just one dollar.

c.d.

[GUT]

I will go out on a limb here but for me it has always been better to have two dollars in my pocket than just one dollar.

c.d.

Or even five.

[Mayerling]

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

Hi Pierre,

Out of curiosity,

1) what do you think was the source produced after the inquest on the very same day?

2) what, if we accept said source, was it's function?

3) what, if we accept the function of said source, would be the tendency it produced on Abberline after the inquest?

Again, best wishes,

Jeff

[GUT]

I will go out on a limb here but for me it has always been better to have two dollars in my pocket than just one dollar.

c.d.

Or even five.

Even more so when you're an unfortunate way behind on your rent.

[Wickerman]

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.

If Hutchinson was lying then we are left with three comments that require separate explanations.

Bowyer is credited with this comment on Nov. 14th, when the "murderer" was clearly suspected to be Astrachan:

"Early on Friday morning Bowyer saw a man, whose description tallies with that of the supposed murderer."

Mrs McCarthy is credited with this remark:

"Mrs McCarthy herself gives a slight clue as to a person who was seen in the court early on Friday morning, as one of her customers remarked to her – before the murder was known - “I saw such a funny man up the court this morning”."

And Sarah Lewis, in more detailed coverage in the press is credited with this:

"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

Once, is happenstance; twice is coincidence; three times, from three separate sources is worthy of consideration.

Hutchinson saw someone, at that location on the night in question - Hutchinson, Bowyer, McCarthy and Sarah Lewis, who in fact may have been McCarthy's illusive customer, all saw someone in the court that night.

[Ben]

Not this again, Jon, surely?

Not that "pass up the court" painfulness again?

That did not happen, as Sarah Lewis's police statement and all other press sources that recounted her inquest evidence make abundantly clear. She absolutely did not claim to have seen anyone "pass up the court". You are relying on a single instance of confusion and misreporting from one single newspaper. Similarly, Thomas Bowyer most assuredly did not see Kelly in the company of a man on Friday morning, less still one that resembled Astrakhan. He made it quite clear at the inquest that his last sighting of Kelly occurred on "Wednesday afternoon". You say that Mrs. McCarthy is "credited" with a "remark" about one of her customers seeing "such a funny man" in Miller's Court on the morning of Kelly's murder; credited by whom? Why isn't the "customer" identified? Why is there no direct interview with Mrs. McCarthy? And why didn't this "evidence" appear at the inquest?

If you're interested in this murder in particular, and keen to make sense of the eyewitness evidence associated therewith, it is essential to filter out the third-hand hearsay dross that appeared in the press (for about five minutes) in the immediate aftermath of the murder.

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

I'll drink to that.

[Wickerman]

Afternoon and evening were synonymous terms in the 19th century, a fact that is well established.
Maybe it requires a full page in Ripperologist, for anyone too busy to follow Casebook & JTRForums.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;384925]

Hi Pierre,

Out of curiosity,

1) what do you think was the source produced after the inquest on the very same day?

Hi Jeff,

you mean why I think this source was produced after the inquest on the very same day. My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect.

2) what, if we accept said source, was it's function?

The function of the source is to give the public the impression that there was a man in the room in Millerīs Court together with Kelly shortly before the critical point of the time of death given by to the public by Dr Bond.

The conclusion about this function is drawn from the internal source criticism, showing that there is a tendency in the source. The tendency (apart from the antisemitic tendency) is visible in the statement about Hutchinson standing and waiting for three quarters of an hour in Millerīs Court and in the statement that the man did not come out of the room.

3) what, if we accept the function of said source, would be the tendency it produced on Abberline after the inquest?

The tendency of Abberline, in his source, is to render credibility to Hutchinson and thereby to this whole story. The function thereby becomes obvious: since Abberline says it is "an important statement" and he believes "the statement is true", the tendency of the source is to legitimate the whole story of a jewish looking man being in the room with Kelly at a critical point in time: the approximate time of her death or shortly before that time.

This source by Abberline has the function of showing everyone that Abberline "had no clue" who the killer was.

So there are reasons for the existence of the peculiar Hutchinson-source and the source of Abberline produced at the same time.

Again, best wishes,

Jeff

Thanks Jeff, the same to you.

Pierre

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;384989]

Hi Jeff,

you mean why I think this source was produced after the inquest on the very same day. My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect.

2) what, if we accept said source, was it's function?

The function of the source is to give the public the impression that there was a man in the room in Millerīs Court together with Kelly shortly before the critical point of the time of death given by to the public by Dr Bond.

The conclusion about this function is drawn from the internal source criticism, showing that there is a tendency in the source. The tendency (apart from the antisemitic tendency) is visible in the statement about Hutchinson standing and waiting for three quarters of an hour in Millerīs Court and in the statement that the man did not come out of the room.

3) what, if we accept the function of said source, would be the tendency it produced on Abberline after the inquest?

The tendency of Abberline, in his source, is to render credibility to Hutchinson and thereby to this whole story. The function thereby becomes obvious: since Abberline says it is "an important statement" and he believes "the statement is true", the tendency of the source is to legitimate the whole story of a jewish looking man being in the room with Kelly at a critical point in time: the approximate time of her death or shortly before that time.

This source by Abberline has the function of showing everyone that Abberline "had no clue" who the killer was.

So there are reasons for the existence of the peculiar Hutchinson-source and the source of Abberline produced at the same time.



Thanks Jeff, the same to you.

Pierre

I don't usually find myself in agreement with Pierre, but something in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, of Sunday, December 4, 1888, on page 11, col. 1. It seems that a group of New York lawyers met at a dinner and were discussing the news of George Hutchinson's detailed description of the man who went indoors with Mary Kelly. This group included such luminaries as General Horace Porter, the author and diplomat, and Chauncey Depew, the former President of the New York Central Railroad, and (in 1888) the Senator from New York State and favorite son candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination (which went to Benjamin Harrison, who won). The column was a long one, and the men agreed (particularly Porter, when queried about recent chance acquaintances, and even friends) that it was hard to describe in even vague detail what a party looked like. I suggest reading this column in the paper, as it is a contemporary view on the subject, and it even bolsters Pierre's point of view.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

I don't usually find myself in agreement with Pierre, but something in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, of Sunday, December 4, 1888, on page 11, col. 1. It seems that a group of New York lawyers met at a dinner and were discussing the news of George Hutchinson's detailed description of the man who went indoors with Mary Kelly. This group included such luminaries as General Horace Porter, the author and diplomat, and Chauncey Depew, the former President of the New York Central Railroad, and (in 1888) the Senator from New York State and favorite son candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination (which went to Benjamin Harrison, who won). The column was a long one, and the men agreed (particularly Porter, when queried about recent chance acquaintances, and even friends) that it was hard to describe in even vague detail what a party looked like. I suggest reading this column in the paper, as it is a contemporary view on the subject, and it even bolsters Pierre's point of view.

How does that support anything Pierre has said?

[David Orsam]

My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November.

What a strange situation we have here. On moral and ethical grounds, Pierre refuses to identify his suspect, of whom he claims to have some evidence that he was Jack the Ripper, yet has no problem in accusing by name, on the basis of no evidence at all, three senior police officials of being involved in an illegal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and fail to bring to justice the killer and mutilator of a number of women in 1888, thus allowing him to be at large to commit other murders.

Even worse, his understanding of events in 1888 is all wrong. He thinks that Warren resigned due knowing the killer's identity but it is a historical fact that his resignation was because he had been presented with an ultimatum by the Home Secretary whereby he had to gag himself from writing articles for publication. He was never going to accept this and thus resigned.

Pierre's suspicions about Abberline have been shown to be based on a complete misunderstanding of what happened at the Kelly inquest, something that has been demonstrated quite clearly on this forum yet he ignores it.

In reliance on his suspicions about Monro, he seems to place weight on a comment by Monro's grandson who was born after Monro had died and thus never spoke to him.

No doubt he will tell us that "his sources" lead him to accuse Warren, Monro and Abberline (even though those same sources prevent him from accusing the man he thinks committed the murder) but that's baloney because even if he is right that the murderer was a police officer, there is no way that such an conspiracy of which he mentions existed.

[Mayerling]

How does that support anything Pierre has said?

Hi David,

In his response to me, Pierre was suggesting that Hutchinson's testimony was sort of pushed by Abberline, Monro, and Warren as a kind of "straw man" to prevent identification of the actual killer (i.e., it was a wrong or questionable identification). The general drift of comments on the thread is that Hutchinson's testimony is highly questionable. My last comment is that the reported event in New York that was discussed in the Daily Eagle showed a current examination of the testimony of Hutchinson showed it was questioned by experts (a group of lawyers) because of the uncertainties of witness identification. Which means people in 1888 did have doubts about Hutchinson's identification, which fits Pierre's dismissal of it's value to just setting it up as a "straw man".

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

In his response to me, Pierre was suggesting that Hutchinson's testimony was sort of pushed by Abberline, Monro, and Warren as a kind of "straw man" to prevent identification of the actual killer (i.e., it was a wrong or questionable identification). The general drift of comments on the thread is that Hutchinson's testimony is highly questionable. My last comment is that the reported event in New York that was discussed in the Daily Eagle showed a current examination of the testimony of Hutchinson showed it was questioned by experts (a group of lawyers) because of the uncertainties of witness identification. Which means people in 1888 did have doubts about Hutchinson's identification, which fits Pierre's dismissal of it's value to just setting it up as a "straw man".

But Jeff, thinking that Hutchinson's testimony was questionable is one thing. Thinking that it was part of a police driven conspiracy to prevent identification of the actual killer, or to deliberately mislead the public, is completely different isn't it?