Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....

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

  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    If something of that nature did occur then it must have happened before Nov. 15th, the date of the press conjecture that Hutchinson was discredited. Yet, the press were still under the impression that Astrachan was a suspect four days later on the 19th, and Abberline as far out as Dec. 6th retained the belief that Astrachan was responsible, having just arrested Josef Isaacs whom he believed was the long sought missing lodger being sought in the hours after the Kelly murder.

    So, on balance, your suggestion seems unlikely.
    But why would they still be looking for A man, if Hutch wasn't believed?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
    Supposition, of course, but what if Astrakhan Man did exist and came forward to the Police?
    If something of that nature did occur then it must have happened before Nov. 15th, the date of the press conjecture that Hutchinson was discredited. Yet, the press were still under the impression that Astrachan was a suspect four days later on the 19th, and Abberline as far out as Dec. 6th retained the belief that Astrachan was responsible, having just arrested Josef Isaacs whom he believed was the long sought missing lodger being sought in the hours after the Kelly murder.

    So, on balance, your suggestion seems unlikely.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
    Supposition, of course, but what if Astrakhan Man did exist and came forward to the Police?

    Maybe a well to do gent who stated that he was the man seen by Hutch but it was established that he left MJK alone by a certain time - long before the Police believe she met her end.

    The Police would, presumably, be under no obligation to publish either this fact or the man's name. In these circumstances, though, Hutchinson's evidence would prove both correct and assume less importance at the same time.

    Another possibility perhaps.
    Well, it makes for the same kind of scenario I am proposing, with Hutchinson remaining an honest witness who tried his best, but got it wrong. But if this happened, Dew would not be left to guessing...

    Leave a comment:


  • MysterySinger
    replied
    Supposition, of course, but what if Astrakhan Man did exist and came forward to the Police?

    Maybe a well to do gent who stated that he was the man seen by Hutch but it was established that he left MJK alone by a certain time - long before the Police believe she met her end.

    The Police would, presumably, be under no obligation to publish either this fact or the man's name. In these circumstances, though, Hutchinson's evidence would prove both correct and assume less importance at the same time.

    Another possibility perhaps.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    I will take your points one by one, Jon:

    As I offered previously, I do not believe the omission of Lewis in his statement is to be taken to mean he did not see a woman pass by.

    This was a major murder inquiry with a very high profile. Hutchinson would have been asked about people of BOTH genders, and he would have been obliged to answer accordingly. I donīt think Abberline would settle for less.
    To draw the errand to itīs extreme end: What if there was a suffragette demonstration, with 3000 women walking down Dorset Street - would Hutchinson say that there was nobody there...?
    I am not going to take the trouble to look for other cases, where men said that they had seen women. It can easily be argued that perhaps Hutchinson would be stubborn in this matter, and so I will refrain from any such effort.



    My offer is still open to everyone, show me the evidence that he was discredited, something more than tabloid speculations, and I will readily accept it.
    As it stands the earlier time of death offered by Dr. Bond remains thee most likely reason for the press speculation of Hutchinson's "reduced importance".

    Ah - nota bene that I am not saying that Hutchinson was discredited - I donīt think he ever was. It was his story that suffered the fate to become of lesser interest. And I think we have corroboration for this, in how Dew says that Hutchonson was wrong, and how Reg Hutchinson says that his father said that it saddened him that nothing ever came of his testimony.

    The homeless walked the street in all weathers, in some cases the phrase is just a euphemism for being out at night, even for those who slept in doorways or under stairs.

    I find it a bit convenient to pronounce it a euphemism - but I cannot rule out that this may have been so to a smaller or lesser degree. But when somebody says "I walked the streets", I think that what it primarily suggests is that the streets were walked.

    Where do we find this opinion?

    There was a PC interviewed, who had Dorset Street on his beat and who - if I remember correctly - stated that he had seen noone in the street as he passed.

    How do you know this is not the reason why Abberline did choose to believe Hutchinson?
    It strikes me Lewis's story is thee most likely reason for Abberline's belief, whether there was more to his belief will remain unknown.

    I agree - and I said so earlier, I believe. But I think that if Abberline accepted that Hutchinson was the loiterer, then he would be inclined to go along with the rest of the story too. But he only did so initially, after which the story suffered a lessened credence.
    The important part to remember is that it did NOT vanish totally from the radar - some little interest remained, which is entirely consistent with the police having come to the conclusion that Hutchinson was out on the dates; they would nevertheless want to speak to Astrakhan man, to hear what Kelly and he had spoken about on the evening before the murder: Had she feared somebody, had she seemed nervous, had anybody knocked on the door as the two were in the room, such matters.


    I'm not sure which policemen you are referring to, do you mean later 'Memoirs'?

    Indeed I do, Jon! If the police had accepted that the man outside Millers Court had been identical with Hutchinson, I would have expected this to go into at least some of the memoir books.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Let me quote you the weather forecast for Nov. 8th and 9th from both the London Evening Standard & Daily News - it's the same as indeed it should be, there was only one source, the meteorological office.

    England South, London & Channel
    - Easterly winds, strong to a gale, squally, dry.
    Temp. 40 deg at York and in London. It has fallen considerably at our south-eastern and continental stations generally.

    The London Evening Standard published a weekly weather chart on Wednesdays and temps. were taken daily at 7:00 (looks like pm, but could be am, but it was the same time every day).
    At 7:00 on the 8th the winds were from the S/E, Max temp 44, min 37, rainfall 0.
    At 7:00 on the 9th the winds were from the E, Max temp 46, min 39, rainfall 0.17.

    So it appears to have been warmer on the 9th in London than it was on the 8th, the only difference being a bit of rain.

    It doesn't look to me like the weather can be used in the argument, and I suspect a few other points don't quite measure up either.
    When I wrote my piece for Casebook Examiner on Hutchinson, I spoke to an archivist at the British institute for meteorology (or whatever it is called). He went into great detail, looking at different citites and even at parts of London. He told me that the night before the murder night was a very much nicer night, a night when people would certainly appreciate walking the streets.

    I had a computer crash half a year ago, and all that material was lost. So I can only say that I researched the matter thoroughly. And you will have to take my word for it - or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    To me Lewis was more credible than Hutchinson.
    I am assuming the police would have shown Hutchinson, maybe from afar,to Sarah Lewis and ask if that man resembles the man she saw in any way shape or form.

    I am assuming the police/reporters would ask around if Hutchinson knew Kelly.
    Why is there not any tidbit from anywhere that Hutchinson was seen with or knew Kelly from Kelly's friends/acquaintances or neighbors, pubs, etc.
    I am assuming they could just have photographed him and showed it around?

    I mean how would they have determined if Hutchinson was lying or not or did they even bother?
    Last edited by Varqm; 09-07-2016, 02:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Hutchinson does not have to mention Lewis to prove he was outside of Crossingham's.By the time he(Hutchinson) appeared at the police station,Lewis had already placed a male person there,and Hutchinson's self admission that he was that person(2-3 time frame statement),was enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    It explains why he did not see Lewis.
    As I offered previously, I do not believe the omission of Lewis in his statement is to be taken to mean he did not see a woman pass by.

    It explains why Hutchisons story was dicredited, while he was still thought of as an honest man on whom Dew would not reflect.
    My offer is still open to everyone, show me the evidence that he was discredited, something more than tabloid speculations, and I will readily accept it.
    As it stands the earlier time of death offered by Dr. Bond remains thee most likely reason for the press speculation of Hutchinson's "reduced importance".

    It explains why Hutchinson walked the streets after having left Dorset Street - he would not have done that in the gruesome Friday night weather.
    The homeless walked the street in all weathers, in some cases the phrase is just a euphemism for being out at night, even for those who slept in doorways or under stairs.

    It explains why the PC on the Dorset Street beat did not see Hutchinson as he passed.
    Where do we find this opinion?

    It explains why Abberline did not cement the meeting of Lewis and Hutchinson as proof that the grooms story was true - since the two never met.
    How do you know this is not the reason why Abberline did choose to believe Hutchinson?
    It strikes me Lewis's story is thee most likely reason for Abberline's belief, whether there was more to his belief will remain unknown.

    It explains why no policeman makes the connection.
    It explains every little thing attaching to the perceived Hutchinson enigma.

    It is by far the best solution.
    I'm not sure which policemen you are referring to, do you mean later 'Memoirs'?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Realistically, he could not. Ergo, he was not there on the night, he was there the night before, as indicated by Dew.


    It explains why Astrakhan and Kelly stopped outside the court to chat - the weather was quite nice the night before.
    Let me quote you the weather forecast for Nov. 8th and 9th from both the London Evening Standard & Daily News - it's the same as indeed it should be, there was only one source, the meteorological office.

    England South, London & Channel
    - Easterly winds, strong to a gale, squally, dry.
    Temp. 40 deg at York and in London. It has fallen considerably at our south-eastern and continental stations generally.

    The London Evening Standard published a weekly weather chart on Wednesdays and temps. were taken daily at 7:00 (looks like pm, but could be am, but it was the same time every day).
    At 7:00 on the 8th the winds were from the S/E, Max temp 44, min 37, rainfall 0.
    At 7:00 on the 9th the winds were from the E, Max temp 46, min 39, rainfall 0.17.

    So it appears to have been warmer on the 9th in London than it was on the 8th, the only difference being a bit of rain.

    It doesn't look to me like the weather can be used in the argument, and I suspect a few other points don't quite measure up either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Christer, if Hutchinson's story occupies an hour and ten minutes, and halfway through that time Lewis walks through the scene, by what measure can we assume Lewis didn't see Hutchinson?
    I guess I don't see how it could be argued that they missed each other.

    By her own admission, she was at Millers court by 2:30, and Hutchinson claims to have been at Millers court from 2:15-3:00, roughly, then how could Lewis miss Hutchinson?
    Realistically, he could not. Ergo, he was not there on the night, he was there the night before, as indicated by Dew.

    It explains why he did not see Lewis.
    It explains why Astrakhan and Kelly stopped outside the court to chat - the weather was quite nice the night before.
    It explains why Hutchisons story was dicredited, while he was still thought of as an honest man on whom Dew would not reflect.
    It explains why Hutchinson walked the streets after having left Dorset Street - he would not have done that in the gruesome Friday night weather.
    It explains why the PC on the Dorset Street beat did not see Hutchinson as he passed.
    It explains why Abberline did not cement the meeting of Lewis and Hutchinson as proof that the grooms story was true - since the two never met.
    It explains why no policeman makes the connection.
    It explains every little thing attaching to the perceived Hutchinson enigma.

    It is by far the best solution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Christer, if Hutchinson's story occupies an hour and ten minutes, and halfway through that time Lewis walks through the scene, by what measure can we assume Lewis didn't see Hutchinson?
    I guess I don't see how it could be argued that they missed each other.

    By her own admission, she was at Millers court by 2:30, and Hutchinson claims to have been at Millers court from 2:15-3:00, roughly, then how could Lewis miss Hutchinson?
    Last edited by Wickerman; 09-06-2016, 01:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Ok Christer, you lost me there.

    Hutchinson said a man & woman (Astrachan & Kelly) walked up the court, this is what Lewis said - a couple walked up the court, the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, so was Mary Kelly.
    But Hutchinson arrived at Millers Court at arund 2 AM or shortly thereafter, and Lewis got there half an hour later. It seems to me they cannot be speaking of the same couple.

    Hutchinson fixes the time by two separate matters:
    I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three o'clock.

    Lewis leaves little doubt too:
    I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday ... I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as I passed it.

    Could more than one woman be without headgear? Yes. Could more than one woman be drunk? Yes. And it seems that is what we are dealing with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    ......

    Of course, you also mention a couple who you believe walked up the court at the same time as Lewis arrived. And that couple would involve a man, so Hutchinson should have mentioned him at the very least. And to speculate that a man who was passed by both a couple and then a woman (quite the rush hour!), would afterwards actively deny their existence by specifically saying that a PC and a lodger were the only people he saw, does not ring trustworthy to me. Sorry, Jon, but there you are.
    Ok Christer, you lost me there.

    Hutchinson said a man & woman (Astrachan & Kelly) walked up the court, this is what Lewis said - a couple walked up the court, the woman was hatless & the worse for drink, so was Mary Kelly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    One Mighty Hawks player once snapped one in half.
    Well....actually it was a point post.
    Now they have padding
    "Snapped one in half"?

    Okay, maybe that explains things.

    PS. Mighty Hawks..? Whatīs that? Aussie football?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 09-06-2016, 09:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X