Mjk

[lynn cates]

answers

Hello Sally. Thanks.

"If, as you think (correct me if I'm wrong) A-Man was really a Fenian sympathiser come to silence Mary Kelly, also a Fenian sympathiser, then of course he need not be stalking prostitutes at all. Other than Kelly, presumably."

Need to correct on two counts here. I tend to think of "MJK" as one of Sir Ed's informants--not really a Fenian sympathiser. Also, if Millen were A-man, we KNOW he was a British agent, and since around 1867.

Hence, if A-man were there to meet Kelly--which I find likely--it might have been as a warning.

We know that:

1. Sir Ed had met Michael Davitt in Paris around mid-October. It was then that Sir Ed swapped some information with Davitt so that he would promise to be mum at the Parnell commission about to meet.

2. Parnell mistook Alexander Sullivan as a nice Irish patriot. He would share information with him on occasion.

3. Sullivan ran the break away "Triangle Faction" of the Clan-na-gael." He was accused of ordering the "removal" of Dr. Cronin. But he escaped the murder charge--in fact, the second murder charge in his life.

4. Davitt then lured John P. Hayes to Paris and pried information from him at revolver point.

"As for Frank Millen, how similar? Sporting an Astrakhan coat was not particularly unusual (if uncommon on the streets of Whitechapel as 2am). Hutchinson's description is quite specific; I think Millen would have to fit very well to convince in the role. Generalities are not sufficient. Besides which, if a man was up to no good in the early hours of the morning in a decidedly dodgy area of town, I can't for the life of me think why he would choose to dress up in his finery?"

Very well. Have you read his complete description? Have you seen his photo or sketch?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

oops

Hello Sally. I wonder what the devil that yellow symbol is above? Must have pressed the wrong button.

So sorry.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Yes, Fisherman, I remember how convinced the readership of this forum was by that contention. Boy, it certainly has changed history.

I'm not convinced - my perogative - and as such I can, and will, continue to think that the two witness accounts refer to the same night. I see absolutely no reason to think otherwise."

Nope - AND you have explained why very eloquently: because you personally don´t think that Hutchinson would have muddled the days. I find that argument a bit on the meagre side, but if you are willing to accept what I think, no questions asked, I may do the same for you

1. Kelly went from gloriously drunk to slightly tipsy in a very short time. That points to the days being muddled.

2. Hutchinson never saw a woman that passed right under his nose. That points to the days being muddled.

3. Hutchinson never saw people that were reported to have been in the vicinity by other witnesses. That points to the days being muddled.

4. Hutchinson describes people who were moving about in useful weather instead of in the bad weather on the murder night. That points to the days being muddled.

5. A man that worked the case for the police asserts us that he thinks the reason for Hutchinsons story being graded down lay in a muddling of the days on his behalf.

... but you "think" that Hutchinson would not do this. And to bolster it, you remind me that there were people who actually agreed with you; they did not "think" so either.

Can´t recall any substantiation about that, however And it WOULD be hard to produce, admittedly - it is actually outright impossible to do so.

But you know, Sally, I am not very interested in discussing this anymore. What can be done has been done on my behalf, and I am pleased to see that it took but a few seconds before the suggestion of muddled days surfaced when you spoke of the anomaly in her drunken stages that night. It means that the suggestion of muddled days has been a fertile one, in spite of your misgivings!

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

conviction

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I am extremely difficult to convince of ANYTHING. But, once actually convinced, it tends to stick.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi
Ah the good old days of the mistaken day, just like Mrs Maxwell's..
I firmly believe nobody got the wrong day.
On the evening of the 8TH , Kelly ventured out at 9pm, spoke to Mrs Prater at the bottom of the passage, she apparently returned home earlier then normal , missing out her normal ''one for the road pub'' then wearing a completely different outfit to what she went out in.
Mrs Praters description of wearing a jacket and bonnet has the hallmarks of truth , as the remark ''I don't own any'' was added.
So did Mrs Cox see MJK? If so why was she dressed differently?
One must conclude that the police would have asked Hutchinson what clothing Mary was wearing at 2am, he was adamant what Mr A was dressed like , so a description would have been orally stated at least, even if not part of his statement.
It remains a mystery to me why the police believed the clothing Kelly initially wore that night were burnt because they were bloodstained, ie Jacket and Mrs Harvey's bonnet.
She was obviously intending to dress up that evening, and possibly bring home someone, by Harvey's words ''Well I shall not be seeing you again this evening'' also ''I will be leaving my bonnet then''
There is more then meets the eye, to events that night/morning.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I firmly believe nobody got the wrong day."

Puts you nicely on par with Sally, then. And with the same amount of substantiation.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I´ll look around for my helmet now - and then, quick as lightning - I´m outta here ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

But you know, Sally, I am not very interested in discussing this anymore.

Really? Then why instigate the conversation?

But fine, splendid, GREAT!

Off you go then.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally,
Be careful you will get him ''Cross''
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Hi Sally,
Be careful you will get him ''Cross''
Regards Richard.

Richard - I'll 'Cross' that bridge when I come to it..

[Sally]

Hi Lynn

Need to correct on two counts here. I tend to think of "MJK" as one of Sir Ed's informants--not really a Fenian sympathiser. Also, if Millen were A-man, we KNOW he was a British agent, and since around 1867.

Ok, thanks for correcting me! But Kelly was a prostitute - if she was an informant, surely she'd have been paid for that service? Prostitution was the last - often only - resort of those who had little choice if they wished to survive - not a career choice.

Hence, if A-man were there to meet Kelly--which I find likely--it might have been as a warning.

If you find the first part of your statement likely, then of course you require a reason in order to support it. But, I am bound to ask, as warning against what?

We know that:

1. Sir Ed had met Michael Davitt in Paris around mid-October. It was then that Sir Ed swapped some information with Davitt so that he would promise to be mum at the Parnell commission about to meet.

2. Parnell mistook Alexander Sullivan as a nice Irish patriot. He would share information with him on occasion.

3. Sullivan ran the break away "Triangle Faction" of the Clan-na-gael." He was accused of ordering the "removal" of Dr. Cronin. But he escaped the murder charge--in fact, the second murder charge in his life.

4. Davitt then lured John P. Hayes to Paris and pried information from him at revolver point.

Interesting - yes no demonstrable connection with Kelly.

Very well. Have you read his complete description? Have you seen his photo or sketch?

I believe I have, I think in fact that you kindly supplied a link for me in the past. I was very interested to read that description, due to the possibility that he did indeed closely resemble Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan Man. I think I saw most (if not all ) of those similarities as generic.

But I have thought about a great deal of other things since then, so perhaps I am mistaken. If you would be so kind as to point me in the right direction, I'll gladly have another look - I certainly wouldn't want to pronounce with confidence on any matter without full possession of the facts.

Thanks for your reply Lynn

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally,
That will be a ''double cross'' ha
Richard

[Sally]

Richard - we all have our 'Cross' to bear

Enough...

Now then, MjK...

[Jon Guy]

Hi Richard

It was actually not a reference to a street walker, it was reflecting on her knowledge of events , one could say ''being paranoid'' of danger, which she apparently was.

But, she was a street walker and as such HAD to go out at that time. Initiating contact with strange men was what it was all about.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon,
I was not disputing ,that she was into prostitution, but that was not my intended meaning ''A woman like Kelly'' as my post explained .
I would dispute that she had to go out at ''that time''.. we are talking about a lone trek at 2am , on dangerous streets , when she had already been out PM on the 8TH.
She does not fit into the Nichols -Chapman- Eddowes bracket of having no choice being on the streets, Kelly had her room, and I would dispute that she had no option, but to venture out at 2am unaccompanied , when all she could hope to find was empty streets and possibly ''Jack''.
She apparently [ according to court resident Lottie] was safety concious and tried not to walk out alone, especially at non populated times, she was verbal, remarking to Mrs McCarthy'' He is a concern is he not''.just 24 hours previous.
If Hutchinson 's tale is true,[ which I accept] then Mary did venture out, but with the sole purpose of meeting someone, and I would suggest that it was prearranged,, for whatever purpose ?
Regards Richard.