Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....

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

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


    In the years before women got the vote they were much like background noise in Victorian society. Not always seen, barely acknowledged or recognised. As you know this was a distinctly male dominated society.

    Seeing "no-one about" can generally be taken to mean no other men, or no other men acting suspicious.
    Women came and went as part of the fabric of society, housewives, homeless, unfortunates, midwives, servants, cleaners, all shuffling around the streets at all hours of day and night, barely acknowledged by men.

    The press have provided more complete coverage of the Kelly inquest where they reported Lewis did see the man loitering in Dorset St. but also at the same time a couple, where the female was hatless, the worse for drink, and that the couple did walk up the passage.
    Bowyer also recalls a stranger in the court about 3:00 am that morning, and Mrs McCarthy remembered a customer remarking that a funny-looking man was in the court early that morning. The shop was open until 3:00am, and sometime till a little later.

    So these observations do support the claim by Hutchinson, they certainly do not contradict his story.
    I must beg to disagree, Jon. I don´t think that women were left out of witness statements at all, as if they were not worthy of mentioning. I appreciate that these were other times, but not THAT different.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    DJA:
    [/B] Do you have a national game where the goal posts are moved around the ball

    No. Do you have one where you take away the goal posts?
    One Mighty Hawks player once snapped one in half.
    Well....actually it was a point post.
    Now they have padding

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Thanks for that.
    Much appreciated.

    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    If you cannot obtain a copy of the originals from London you can look up a used copy of this publication. Smithkey published the original handwritten witness statements and inquest transcript from the Kelly murder.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0966241916...reative=380549

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Hi Christer..
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    At any rate, Hutchinson lays down that he saw only two people during his vigil:.......... Was he the man Lewis saw or was he not? If he was, he should confirm Lewis´observation by acknowledging her passing into the court, but he does not. He says not a word about her, but instead states as a fact that the only people he saw were a PC and a lodger.
    In the years before women got the vote they were much like background noise in Victorian society. Not always seen, barely acknowledged or recognised. As you know this was a distinctly male dominated society.

    Seeing "no-one about" can generally be taken to mean no other men, or no other men acting suspicious.
    Women came and went as part of the fabric of society, housewives, homeless, unfortunates, midwives, servants, cleaners, all shuffling around the streets at all hours of day and night, barely acknowledged by men.

    The press have provided more complete coverage of the Kelly inquest where they reported Lewis did see the man loitering in Dorset St. but also at the same time a couple, where the female was hatless, the worse for drink, and that the couple did walk up the passage.
    Bowyer also recalls a stranger in the court about 3:00 am that morning, and Mrs McCarthy remembered a customer remarking that a funny-looking man was in the court early that morning. The shop was open until 3:00am, and sometime till a little later.

    So these observations do support the claim by Hutchinson, they certainly do not contradict his story.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    Wasn't aware they are in the public domain.
    If you cannot obtain a copy of the originals from London you can look up a used copy of this publication. Smithkey published the original handwritten witness statements and inquest transcript from the Kelly murder.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/0966241916...reative=380549

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post
    Been elevated to the real killer now has he.
    Yes, absolutely - did you spit coffee all over your computer again? It must be getting heavily stained!

    I think we both know where I stand; Charles Lechmere is by far the best suspect, and I consider him the probable killer. I also consider it to be beyond reasonable doubt that the Ripper and the torso killer were one and the same, meaning that I consider the carman the probable killer of at least around a dozen women.

    But that is so tedious to repeat in a discussion like this, which is why I put my tongue in my cheek and pull a leg or two at times. It involves the risk of getting called a liar, but then again, that has happened so frequently that I don´t really care nowadays. I know that people will pounce on every little thing that is offered, and who am I to deny them that exercise?

    But now we are once more delving into Lechmere territory, and this is supposedly a Hutchinson thread.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 09-06-2016, 02:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    DJA: Quite happy with Hutchinson being there as a lookout and telling lies.

    Well, we are all entitled to our own takes on things, and if you have chosen to believe in this, then that is your prerogative. If you do not want to touch any of the other possible scenarios with a long stick, held with a pair of pliers, be my guest.

    Doubt the whole A Man tale,including the meeting in Commercial Street.

    Once again, feel free!

    Do you have a national game where the goal posts are moved around the ball

    No. Do you have one where you take away the goal posts?

    They played one of those Lechmere TV shows the other month.
    Can I have that hour of my life back

    I didn´t realize that we were discussing the real killer, I thought that we were discussing Hutchinson.
    Been elevated to the real killer now has he.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    DJA: Quite happy with Hutchinson being there as a lookout and telling lies.

    Well, we are all entitled to our own takes on things, and if you have chosen to believe in this, then that is your prerogative. If you do not want to touch any of the other possible scenarios with a long stick, held with a pair of pliers, be my guest.

    Doubt the whole A Man tale,including the meeting in Commercial Street.

    Once again, feel free!

    Do you have a national game where the goal posts are moved around the ball

    No. Do you have one where you take away the goal posts?

    They played one of those Lechmere TV shows the other month.
    Can I have that hour of my life back

    I didn´t realize that we were discussing the real killer, I thought that we were discussing Hutchinson.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Quite happy with Hutchinson being there as a lookout and telling lies.
    Doubt the whole A Man tale,including the meeting in Commercial Street.

    Do you have a national game where the goal posts are moved around the ball

    They played one of those Lechmere TV shows the other month.
    Can I have that hour of my life back

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    OK. So it's George Hutchinson of The Victoria Home Commercial Street as per the Police Statement.

    Sarah Lewis failed to notice him at Millers Court,yet saw someone else across the street.

    Brilliant
    If i didn´t have eternal hopes for the flexibility of the human mind, I´d say that you seem pretty stuck in your thinking.

    Hutchinson stayed at the Victoria Home when he was interviewed. That is mirrored in the statement. He was a transient figure, which can be seen by how he speaks of the place where he "normally" stays. Apparently, there are other places where he stayed when he was not in his "normal" haunt. That fits his occupation as a casual labourer like a glove.

    Look at the main issue in this way:
    The police secured Sarah Lewis´ statement before the inquest. It changed somewhat between the initial statement and the inquest statement, but the overall impression was a clear one - Lewis had walked into Millers Court on the murder night, and as she did so, there was a man standing outside the lodging house across the street from the entrance to the court.

    This knowledge was in in the public domain, and the police was quite familiar with it.

    Then along ame George Hutchinson. He gave a statement that was initially considered to be true by Frederick Abberline, and that statement involved how Hutchinson monitored the entrance to Millers Court for 45 minutes, involving the moment in time (around 2.30) when Sarah Lewis entered the court.

    The implications are clear - if Hutchinson did what he said he did, then he would have been in place outside the court as Lewis passed into it. Ergo, the logical conclusion must be that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw.

    So which are the problems? Well, they are numerous. Let´s look at a few of them:

    Hutchinson said that he stood at the corner of the court, and not where Lewis said she saw her man: on the opposite side of the street, outside the lodging house. This of course can be overcome - Hutchinson may have moved about. But there is also the possibility that he did NOT move about, and that affects the errand very much, as you will see.

    Abberline believed Hutchinsons story from the outset. He was aware, of course, that a crucial witness had placed a man outside Millers Court at 2.30, and so that may have helped Abberline to overcome any doubts he may (or may not) have had about the veracity of the groom. Hutchinson fit in.

    So why then does Abberline loose faith in the grooms story? Well, reasonably because something surfaced that disproved that Hutchinson was the man Lewis saw. For example, Hutchinson could have stated that he was never across the street. That would have been game over for the credence Abberline afforded the story - in such a case, there would have been TWO men outside the court, and Lewis would have missed the one standing right outside the entrance!

    At any rate, Hutchinson lays down that he saw only two people during his vigil: a PC in the distance and a lodger outside the lodging house opposite Millers Court (note that it sounds as if he observes the lodger from a vantage point that is not the doorway of the lodging house). When we ask ourselves why Abberline lost faith in the story of the groom, this would have served as the litmus paper. Was he the man Lewis saw or was he not? If he was, he should confirm Lewis´observation by acknowledging her passing into the court, but he does not. He says not a word about her, but instead states as a fact that the only people he saw were a PC and a lodger.

    Apparently, Hutchinson was not the man Lewis saw, therefore. And Walter Dew offers an explanation: Hutchinson mistook the day.
    There were other people than Lewis around on the murder night. Hutchinson failed to mention them too, and so the suggestion that he was not there becomes solidified.

    With a closed mindset, you say: "Sarah Lewis failed to notice him at Millers Court,yet saw someone else across the street. Brilliant!"
    Of course, you are being sarcastic, saying that Lewis could not have seen any other man than Hutchinson. And as long as we accept that he was there between 2 and 2.45 AM on the murder night, you have a great point.
    But once we realize that the signs point away from him having been there, since he paints a picture of another clientele in the street than the one we are aware of, we are faced with another question: If Hutchinson was NOT there, could it be that there was a man standing outside the lodging house at 2.30 on the murder night, or is that plain impossible?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 09-06-2016, 12:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    OK. So it's George Hutchinson of The Victoria Home Commercial Street as per the Police Statement.

    Sarah Lewis failed to notice him at Millers Court,yet saw someone else across the street.

    Brilliant

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    That fact the he stood across Dorset Street outside the Commercial Street Chambers owned by George Wilmott of Romford to view Millers Court, Mary Kelly and A Man ring any bells!
    He actually never once said that he stood across Dorset Street - he said he stood at the corner of the court. I suppose the bells I am supposed to hear would go "If you have walked from Romford to the East End, you will probably live in a lodging house owned by a Romford man", but I really don´t think that is any certainty at all. Hutchinson would have been doing all sorts of casual work wherever it surfaced. His words "Thursday last I had been to Romford" does not tell me that Romford was his regular working place. If it was, he would arguably not live in the East End.
    So no, the bells you are hearing are not loud and clear to my ears.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    [B][B]I have two problems with this, DJA. The first one is that it has not been established where Hutchinsons lodgings were situated. In the press interview, seemingly conducted at the Victoria Home, he says: "I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night". "Here" in this context, seems to be the Victoria Home. But he later in the interview states: "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed." It therefore appears that the Victoria Home was not his regular haunt.
    That fact the he stood across Dorset Street outside the Commercial Street Chambers owned by George Wilmott of Romford to view Millers Court, Mary Kelly and A Man ring any bells!

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Hutchinson attended the police station with an already prepared statement,that appears obvious.A statement that he had much time to consider.That he should fail to identify the public house correctly,a significant detail,seems a bit remiss.He resided a short distance away,but it is the only occasion he has to make a close inspection of the man's facial features.Now if the lamp had not been lit that morning,would anyone at the station be aware of that fact. A small lie inserted among several others.
    I would expect Badham to have given Hutchinson a chance to read the statement before signing,and if Hutchinson found the wrong name,then Hutchinson had an opportunity to correct it.
    Agree,however Queens Head was not in Hutchinson's handwriting.

    Certainly not in Abberline's either.

    Neither does an H like that.

    Abberline's "een"s as in "Queens and seen" is similar but somewhat different.
    Doubt he would write an H like that either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    DJA: Because I had already raised the issue previously,as mentioned on page 8.

    Hutchinson can notice all those details,yet not know the name of the pub near his lodgings.

    I have two problems with this, DJA. The first one is that it has not been established where Hutchinsons lodgings were situated. In the press interview, seemingly conducted at the Victoria Home, he says: "I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night". "Here" in this context, seems to be the Victoria Home. But he later in the interview states: "After I left the court I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed." It therefore appears that the Victoria Home was not his regular haunt.

    Any which way, Hutchinson names a number of the streets in the Millers Court area, so he seems to be familiar enough with it. I would still say that we cannot possibly know with what degree of ease he produced the street names - he may have wavered, and been helped by Badham. Such a thing cannot be established by looking at the final statement only. If, for example, Hutchinson said "It was that street where the grocery shop with the green windows are, what´s it called..?", whereupon Badham could have said "That would be X Street", and Hutchinson could have said "Ah, yes - X Street it is!". I don´t think that the initial uncertainty in such a case would be taken down into the statement.

    As for the alteration of the pub name, I find it totally understandable if you mix up the names of two pubs in an area you are perhaps not living in yourself. To me, that is uncontroversial, and I am not sure what sinister implications it could possibly hold. Are you thinking that the story was a total fabrication, is that it?

    Have a good look at the statement.

    Hutchinson had to stop and look back from whence he came to see Kelly and A man meet.

    Yes? Meaning?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 09-05-2016, 10:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X