Did Mary know her attacker?

[c.d.]

Hi Sam,

Your bear analogy made me wonder if the police checked the soles of Mary's shoes to determine if she had gone out or would that have been too Sherlock Holmeseish back in 1888?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hi Ben,

Yes, I agree there are a lot of "twisted knickers" as you say over this point. Interestingly enough, we have the same expression here in the good old U.S. of A., only we say "don't get your panties in a bunch."

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

I tend to be swayed - personally - by what we call the Null Hypothesis (Ho), which in the absence of any reliable evidence to the effect that a given event occured, we assume it didn't. In the absence of any reliable evidence that Kelly went out again, I tend to endorse the Null Hypothesis that she didn't.

Is that a valid hypothesis in the context of a Spitalfields streetwalker, though?

If you wandered through a forest and found no bear droppings, would you therefore support a null hypothesis that says that bears do not $hit in the woods?

[Ben]

Nah, CD, apparently I only defend my prom date if people say negative things about his candidacy, but you weren't doing that.

Still think there's an unnecessary amount of twisted knickers over the issue of Kelly's nocturnal activity, but I tend to be swayed - personally - by what we call the Null Hypothesis (Ho), which in the absence of any reliable evidence to the effect that a given event occured, means we assume it didn't. In the absence of any reliable evidence that Kelly went out again, I tend to endorse the Null Hypothesis that she didn't.

I honestly don't mind it she did go out again, but still...

[Ben]

Hi Suzi - I think Hutchinson may well have seen Kelly that night, but there's a difference between exploring that possibility and adhering blindly to the view that he also saw some bling-bedecked surly Jewish dandy, especially when the contemporary police clearly came to believe otherwise. I'm not sure why you think the 6d line "smacks of friendship". I think it smacks of someone trying to convey an impression of friendship.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi CD,

Either we accept what evidence we have as a metaphysical certainty or we choose to examine the evidence.

The problem is that the patchy evidence we have offers no certainty - whether metaphysical or otherwise - that Mary Kelly stayed in. We have at least some direct evidence (Hutchinson) that she went out again after 1AM, and plenty of indirect evidence (from the behaviour of other women in Kelly's situation) that her venturing back out again would not have constituted unusual behaviour. Conversely, her staying in after returning at 11:45 is arguably the more unusual behaviour, from what we know of Prater's and Cox's movements that very same night.

It's not as if Kelly's going out to make more money that night lacks a motive. One thing we do know with reasonable certainty is that she was told point blank on the eve of her death that her boyfriend had no money to give her. That piece of evidence is much more than we have in respect of Cox or Prater, and it should not be overlooked.

[c.d.]

Jeez Ben, again with the fricken Hutchinson. You clearly missed the point of my post which was directed to Michael and his adherence to the facts. Now it is pretty damn clear that Hutchinson was discredited. No question about it. But we draw an inference to reach that conclusion. The point I was attempting to make is that nowhere do we have a police document that says "Hutchinson has been discredited. Signed Abberline."

Please don't make me drag up Ally's point about Hutchinson as your prom date. A smiley should go here but I can't get it to work.

c.d.

[paul emmett]

Abberline's immediate reaction to Hutchinson's statement reflected a belief in its veracity, but this was penned on the same evening that Hutchinson made his statement, when it was literally impossible to validate his claims.

Hi, Ben, all.

What claims COULD he validate? And, in turn, what claims could he invalidate?

[Suzi]

Ben-'Did not invest any sock???' Hmmmmm

I am totally sure that George Hutchinson 'knew' Mary in whatever sense and OK his statement 'large' or not... He most certainly saw her that night at some point...the 6d line is too close to be true it smacks of a friendship and I will not be swayed from that!

[Ben]

my good friend Michael says it is reasonable to assume that Hutchinson was discredited. Ah, but there is no evidence of that

Please don't be ridiculous, CD.

Hutchinson's suspect description was most assuredly discredited. Subscribe all you wish to the view that he might have seen Kelly in some capacity that night, but the police clearly did not invest any sock in his eyewitness description of a suspect in the long run. We either accept this or endorse the view that the seniority of the contemporary police force suffered from collective stupidity or amnesia in subsequent reports, interviews and memoirs. Abberline's immediate reaction to Hutchinson's statement reflected a belief in its veracity, but this was penned on the same evening that Hutchinson made his statement, when it was literally impossible to validate his claims. Hardly surprising, then, that he revised his view by the time of his 1903 interview, and hardly coincidental that those views tied in with his superiors on the subject of Hutchinson's evidence.

Just a general observation; Yes, Kelly's neighbours were out soliciting in the small hours, but the ones we know about weren't bringing clients home. Prostitutes living in doss houses were not in the same immediate predicament as Kelly for reasons already outlined.

[Suzi]

Hi Mike- I disagree re the lock/window The girl lived there and knew the ways in and out and am sure wasn't averse to popping into 'Uncle Mc C' to grab a key if push came to shove! [Controversy!]

Hi c/d as a fellow knee sufferer- I sympathise! Actually as to crutches.......... they're a pain in the hands as I recall Grrrrrrrrrrrr forget 'em! Just LIMP! thats what I did!x

Mary was OUT and GH saw her ............end of story I say!.........Oh and if pushed..........so did Mrs M

[c.d.]

I have been away for over a week recovering from knee surgery. Hopefully next week I can graduate from crutches to a cane. In my absence, I see that this debate rages on. Against my better judgment, I shall weigh in.

Michael is absolutely adamant that there is no evidence that shows that Mary went out that night soliciting. Therefore, he concludes that she did not go out that night and nothing will dissuade him from that belief. Fair enough.

Now Sam on the other hand says well that may be but we need to examine the evidence and test its validity. He points out that it is not an unreasonable assumption to assume that a regular prostitute in need of money would go out on a weekend night and that the witnesses who have given us this evidence were really not in a position to monitor Mary's coming and goings with absolutely certainty. Fair enough.

Well that folks is the debate in a nutshell. Either we accept what evidence we have as a metaphysical certainty or we choose to examine the evidence. It all depends on how you want to approach it.

Now I do think it interesting that we also have evidence that George Hutchinson saw Mary out soliciting that night. We have evidence that none other than the highly respected Inspector Abberline believed his story. But when faced with evidence that tends to undermine his position, my good friend Michael says it is reasonable to assume that Hutchinson was discredited. Ah, but there is no evidence of that. That is attempting to interpret the validity of the evidence.

I guess it all comes down to how you want to look at things.

Moral of the story -- try to stay away from crutches. They are a pain in the butt.

c.d.

Hi Suzi,

I'm not surprised that a woman recognizes that for many of these women, whoring was a plight not a relief, and many did so only when there was no food and no bed on that given night. Or as in Polly's case, booze instead of food and perhaps her bed that night.

Once again, look at Marys situation. We know she drank her fill that night..a courtyard witness saw her loaded going into her room....we know she ate some food...the autopsy revealed that, and we know she did not have to pay 4d to sleep there that night. We know there was a man with her....same witness.

What we do not have evidence of is her leaving again, him leaving, or anyone coming into the courtyard with Mary later that evening. Evidence that was not discarded in days I mean.

All that we can conclude of those three with any certainty is that Blotchy left. Because he was not there when they opened the door.

So...lacking any evidence to the contrary on the records, I made some remarks.

One last thing...if Mary had to access the spring latch via the window when she got home, we then have another man on record who knows that trick...and could reverse the process when leaving.

Gotta jet...my best regards Suz.

[Suzi]

As they may well have been, for there were evidently very few people around in the right place or at the right time.

As I've just said Gareth.. To use a Welsh phrase..........'I don't know where I am for the days'...

NOW as to time and accuracy we have to rely on church clocks and cats!....Oh and some 'erbert leaving at his usual time!!!! (hmmm)

Mind you the Welsh do have an uncanny grip in what time of day it is!!!! (Well my Mum did!....like when I came in!!)

This all apart I'm convinced that the multiple occupants of Millers Ct had such a 'random' take on day and night that maybe the odd clock/footsteps and the odd (!) cat wouldn't have made that much difference to their accuracy!!!!!

Mind you the clock chiming at a regular time IF they were actually wide awake at that time may have given 'em a clue

[As an aside though......We don't know that the occupants were even 1% Welsh!!!!!]

.....Oh and Mrs Cox's ref to Mr Blotchy/aka Top hat and tails 'Dont pull me along' etc etc has to be taken with more than a pinch re Farson's 'innacurate recollections'.

Mind you there is a sort of.........natural comment there that maybe shouldn't be ignored.....like the kitten!

Suz x

[Suzi]

Hi Sam/Mike

The meanderings/sightings must always be slightly suspect because let's face it....thats what they are.....just sayings......OK there are bits you remember accurately like clocks chiming (!) and cats (Ho Hum) but in the night to be honest with no accurate time pieces apart from maybe a distant recall of the church bell ringing time could be a tad various apart from the 'Thats the time that Bert always goes to work' sort of recollection.

Right- (Deep breath!) These girls/women lived from hand to mouth most of the time...OK they didn't help themselves in their downward struggle but I suppose that wasn't always their fault.

Now- landed bottom up (!) in the 'pits of the world' there were a few opportunities open to them....do some on and off work (as Liz did) in posher people's houses -or grub by living with a man who was bringing in a regular few bob (like most of the others did -from time to time)

Now- when the 'supporter' dies/disappears/ or goes off in a toot or whatever / these women are left alone with the prospect of somehow raising the price of a room/bed however that is to be raised.

Now...I suppose you could go around to 'old friends'..... or call in a few favours or ....maybe just take a deep breath and go down the old 'Ello darling fancy an 'orrible time' route...I'm totally convinced that this was a last chance plan though...'cos let's face it...up against the wall in the 'circumstances' wasn't your best option.....even in the best of times...albeit a good way to turn a trick for the odd 6d for a room and a gin or two to ease the pain.

Annie and Polly (especially Annie) were quite pathetic when they took to the streets as a 'last chance' -[Bonnet or not............and where did that come from?!] Annie was ill and shouldn't have been thrown out of that kitchen I say!!!

Anyway enough of this rant......this is before I get onto Kate and Mary!!!!

And those guys harnessing horses in Dorset St I say should have been interviewed!!

Cheers

Suzi x