MKJ murder, NOT mjk?

[Rubyretro]

The payment which I believe existed, was not a poultry sum in those days

I'm tempted to say that it was 'chicken feed' -but it obviously wasn't.

Richard, I don't want to go on...but you know that I can't resist your gambits!

Imagine that you are a 22 year old man, a bit outgoing (I think that Toppy was, from the way he he met his wife), and the papers and public were all talking about a witness to the latest in a line of notorious murders in the area that you lived in..and that witness happened to be called Richard Nunweek, just like you (and don't forget that the name George Hutchinson
was far more frequent than 'Nunweek').

It is easy to imagine that your friends would joke about it, and it's easy to imagine that acquaintences in the pub would ask you if you were THE 'Richard Nunweek' -and stand you drinks for a story 'from the horse's mouth'. From there it is easy to imagine blagging free drinks for a lurid story
and a laugh, but also taking an active interest in the REAL witness's details -and, since this was an exceptional and maybe an exciting time -being the centre of attention- you'd never forget those details (especially if, like Toppy, you had a very good memory).

Maybe you wanted to impress a young son and dug the story up years later -a souvenir of your youth..an exciting time when you felt linked to the frenzy surrounding the Ripper crimes ?..yet tellingly, Toppy never mentioned that he
was shown MJK's body (surely a memorable , life marking experience ?), and he didn't talk about the case much at all..

I actually think that the Wheeler Report is a clue that Toppy lied to Reg: It is a fact that in false 'hypnotic regression' fantasies, we can see that (sincere) people did not really live former lives -not because of all the detailed historical facts which they got right, but because of the mistakes that they make which can be traced to mistakes in documents with which they have obviously come in contact.

I think that the Wheeler Report is wrong about the sum of money paid to Hutch -and if Toppy reported it, that was his source.

Garry is right that being an apprenticed plumber was costly and long, and at aged 22 (not fitting the description at all, of the Hutch the witness), why would he say that he was an 'un-employed Groom??

I can't believe that, going voluntarily to the Police, he would then lie about something so 'innocent' -it's not like he was trying to hide the fact that
he was a Butcher, or a Surgeon ? Why lie about plumbing ?

I read the handwriting Posts the other day -although superficially they are similar (due to learning fashionable styles by rote) -they are different.

Sorry, Hutch and Toppy were different people..

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
There is a chance that Astracan was invented, but with a twist ie, the police paid Hutchinson/Topping? to make a statement to that effect in order to confuse the possible killer of Kelly, and lead him into a false sense of security.
I doubt that however , although it may explain the money allegedly given to Hutch.
If Topping was the witness[ Which I believe] then he clearly liked the attention by mentioning that he knew a victim , and was paid, one hundred shillings for his help, but of course he having made the Astracan statement had to stick to that account, he could hardly admit it was invented by the police.
The payment which I believe existed, was not a poultry sum in those days, and was not given away just for a walkabout or two with officers.
I believe the 'Wheeling article' is of absolute importance, as this was a rare publication, and not likely to be purchased by the local east ender.
The mention of payment, was not commented on in any other newspaper, and although it was considered a 'Gossip sheet'. dont you think it strange that Topping decided that, as he had the same name as that witness, he would read up on his account, he would take in all the local gossip at the time, and mould himself in George Hutchinson, which would surely make a bob or two in future years, if not a few pints.
Anyone who believes that view I cannot understand.
I would suggest that only the real Hutchinson would be aware of what Topping refered to.
The last words of that 1970 radio broadcast stay in my memory' It was my fathers biggest regret, that dispite the efforts made, nothing came of it'
Topping was the witness.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Richard, Hi ! I am well aware that it gets up some people's noses when
discussions turn into ' Hutch' debates...still you can't ignore him on a MJK thread and, I confess, your questions are like a red rag to a bull as far as I'm concerned ; So let's go:

Why would Hutch want to kill Mary, was he in your opinion JTR.?

Ill answer the second question first: Yes! I can't see two organ harvesting, throat cutting, strangling, murderers operating at the same time in such a small geographical area.
Why would Hutch want to kill Mary ? -well why would JtR want to kill Prostitutes ?? Mary was probably more physically attractive than most, had a private room to allow full reign for his fantasies, some shelter and a fire if he was tired from walking from Romford and found himself out in the cold and rain, nd he probably knew her and had built up a fantasy around her already.

[QUOTE]

Who was Hutchinson can you identify him?[

Nope. I think he was approx aged 28, fit, probably an ex-groom, possibly an ex-soldier, racist, a thug -but with some 'charm' (the gift of the gab), and crafty.

/QUOTE]Do you believe Topping, was the witness Hutchinson?

Nope -I certainly did; I've been convinced otherwise.

I do, 'Topping' was Hutchinson, and no killer, I do not dispair, that no one on Casebook heard a radio broadcast in the early 70s, like I did, when Reg Hutchinson [ son of Topping ] gave a recorded interview

I agree with Garry, that Reg might have been sincere, but Toppy could not have been 'Hutch' : Toppy told porkies. We have some facts about Toppy - namely that he had followed hs father into plumbing and had been a fairly long term apprentice, and he was only 22. I think that he was in the East End at the time, and did other jobs (to be fair to you), but a poor man with a valuable trade such as plumbing, would have given that trade as his main
occupation -not 'groom' (I can't see JtR being caught out lying on innocent
detail).

[QUOTE]

Was the man he described kellys killer, and JTR,?..I have my reservations

[
I have my reservations too, Richard -I think that A Man was made up.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Why would Hutch want to kill Mary, was he in your opinion JTR.?
Who was Hutchinson can you identify him?
Do you believe Topping, was the witness Hutchinson?
I do, 'Topping' was Hutchinson, and no killer, I do not dispair, that no one on Casebook heard a radio broadcast in the early 70s, like I did, when Reg Hutchinson [ son of Topping ] gave a recorded interview for radio.
I heard it, I know it was the same man that gave his name in the 'Ripper and the Royals'[ Some 18 years later] because it was the same account.
If anyone cares to search through every copy of the Radio Times, between 1971-75, and concentates on the rear pages, it will be there. I spent two hours two years ago, with two members of my family doing just that, it was a hot sweaty day, and guess what, we only searched the front , up to the start of the weekly programmes, not the rear which I now know it was .
I have little doubt that GWTH was the witness, and he was being genuine to the best of his ability, and assisted the police all he could.
Was the man he described kellys killer, and JTR,?..I have my reservations.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

...Well, surely a prostitute does invite strange men into isolated places and puts herself into a vulnerable position : that's why prostitutes get attacked
easily.

Having said that, I don't think that she invited any man to spend the night with her -I think that Hutch either accompanied, or followed , her back to the Court, observed her open the door by putting her arm through the window, hung around long enough to be sure she was asleep, then silently opened the door via the window himself, and attacked her in her bed.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Suzi,
If Astracan was not a pure invention , then he must have been known to Mary, for there is no way 'spreeish ' or not, she would have invited a man dressed in that attire , carrying a parcel wrapped in American cloth, back to her room, its just not feasible, the same applies to Blotchy, he was known to her.
Both were .
There is a lot of questions needing answering in the Millers court murder, that we have not got to grips with yet, that goes without saying..
Still how longs this site been going 14 years , we have plenty of time......
The best Richard.

[Suzi]

Hi Richard-
Exactly and I seem to recall she had Joe Barnett read to her re 'The 'Orrors' -odd for an "uneducated girl " I always say

Suz x

[richardnunweek]

Suzi.
Hello..I agree with you MJK would never taken a stranger back to her room during darkness, it just isnt feasible, according to Lottie, a resident of the court in 1888, Mary was fearful of the murders, infact she reportedly had a nightmare about murder[ hers].
According to Dew.. she was fearful of the Ripper[ where he got that from is unknown].
Fearful of taking a stranger back at night... yes.
But broad daylight..one wonders?
Enter Mrs Maxwell.
But that is medically impossible is it not?
Regards Richard.

[Suzi]

Hi all
I've read through though this huge thread with some interest
OK a few points spring to mind-

*The concept that MJK was tall is spurious she may have been shall we say taller than the average woman in the LVP which would have put her around 5' 6" at tops- hardly a giantess!.

*The fact that allegedly she wore her hair free is interesting but considering her alleged 'profession' that may have been shall we say an advertising point maybe

*The fact that Maria/Julia Harvey- a Laundress allegedly left clothes with MJK is interesting- at the time a 'Laundress' was a euphemism for a prostitute.OK the clothes were found there- but maybe that's just what friends do- we'll sort 'em tomorrow- pawn 'em or maybe get 'em washed for some coin.

* Let's assume then that MJK after the sightings various finally took to her bed after a few sings around 3.30 ish (Mary Cox/ Sarah Lewis etc etc) and the Mrs Prater is awoken by the ubiquitous Diddles at some time between 3.30 and 4.00 am taking no notice because it was such a 'common cry' so.... she goes back to sleep.

IMHO MJK staggered in wet and possibly 'not at her best' lit a few miserable bits on the fire and fell asleep leaving her boots to steam dry in the hope that they'd be wearable for The Lord Mayor's Show the following day.

* Mrs Maxwell allegedly didn't know MJK that well- but possibly well enough to be on some sort of first name terms as most people were in those times as a surname was something that could and would change quite often!..... and IF Mary was that noticable she would have almost certainly been in no mistake as to who the woman across the road was!

*Caroline Maxwell was a woman who dealt in regular times with regular duties and after her 'intense interrogation' stuck to her story- a total anomaly in the story of MJK which IMHO sparks a lot of doubts

*Concerning the TOD usually body teperature is a factor- many times on Casebook the fact that the body was 'stripped bare' and that the fire 'burnt the spout off of the kettle (or did it) comes into play Many theories have been put into play on this point

*Enough!- I feel that in the circumstances Mary would not have gone- let alone taken to her room- a stranger!- she took someone with whom she'd 'Be Comfortable'....now a trustee- ------a Priest?......a Policeman?....a Lover??? a Friend?? who knows..........but NO way would she have closed that door that night on a stranger!!!!!

Suzi
x

[joelhall]

Do not forget that the stale loaves left over at the close of business were sometimes all the very poor could afford to have about the house, so it's perfectly possible she ate it as bread or toast. This bread would be sold off at a knock down price before it went moudly to cut down on the bakers or shops losses, and if you have no choice in the matter it's better than nothing, when needs must, etc.

As for ale over-riding all else - this could of course be for the same reason in the centuries before kids at school drank ale - the water they had eccess to was filthy, and brewing help to semi-sterilise it.

That said I remember an interview with an old warehouse worker when some old video footage of normal life dating from I think the 1920s or before was found in the last few years. I forget the exact details of it but remember the old boy talking. He said after their shift they'd often go to the pub and sink about 20 pints! It wasn't uncommon then, as the alcohol content was much lower and drinking ale was practically a way of life. People often forget that what we now class as 'normal' strength beer is in fact strong beer (check the side of the can or bottle). Normal strength beer is around 2-3% alcohol, and has quite a watery taste.

If you lived in Dorset street or elsewhere with a mangy old water pump outside you'd probably think twice about drinking the water too.

The other way was of course boiling the water and making tea to disguise the taste for those who didn't fancy boozing.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well......there's a fair chance Mary would have had experience of cooking......as late as the late 1920s young girls (10 and above) were expected to help their mothers with cooking...cleaning...and washing....and many in the poorer areas (such as my Grandma) went into service at stately homes at the age of 14. So there's a decent chance Mary would have had experience of cooking.

In terms of whether ale overrided all else......it would have depended upon the economics......could she afford to buy from stalls all of the time....or would it have been more economical to buy a few things and cook them herself......I suppose when needs must....

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

There were a few things they could use stale bread for, but only one that I think Mary might have considered. I honestly don't think she could do more than toast a bit of bread or possibly hot up a pie or maybe fry and egg on that fire if she was very ambitious.

I suspect that if Mary was going to do anything with that bread it would have been to soak it in milk, (ideally warm milk which she could have heated on the fire) and eat it as a breakfast cereal. Lots of people had bread and milk as a morning meal, sometimes sprinkled with a bit of sugar to give it some taste. It was an excellent way to use up stale bread.

Those who think that Mrs Maxwell did see Mary that morning going to buy some milk could certainly put the bread and milk together to make an interesting recipe.

I seriously doubt she would have ever considered making a bread pudding as it required cooking, and some fairly expensive ingredients, but a lot of working class women that had cooking facilities would save their stale bread and use it for that. I have a feeling that our Mary wouldn't have been fond of cooking even if she did have a stove!

An strangely enough, I have just this second finishing eating a lump of my bread pudding. I feel fatter already. Lol

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[Fleetwood Mac]

i doubt MJK did ane cooking on her fire. For a start I don't think any cooking utensils were listed in her belongings! She'd have bought her food ready-cooked at a chippie or some such.

I take Supe's point about the fire....bit of a long shot on my part....

But....the Victorian poor certainly did cook on the fire...whether Mary did is open to debate.

[Robert]

Hi Chava

Some time ago Jane Coram (and I hope I'm remembering this right) suggested the stale bread in Mary's cupboard could have been for bread and butter pudding.

[Chava]

i doubt MJK did ane cooking on her fire. For a start I don't think any cooking utensils were listed in her belongings! She'd have bought her food ready-cooked at a chippie or some such.