Romford

[Ben]

I'm sorry but I don't get the point of these inane posts...

Nor do I, Beebs.

They seem to consist of several photographs of men with watch chains, the irony being that Hutchinson probably would have been required to study a photograph in order to register all that he claimed! As you rightly state, the question of why he referred to a "thick gold watch chain" should be considered before we address the "how" of it. The idea of anyone venturing into that district, at the height of the ripper scare, with his thick gold watch chain on proud display is obviously very fanciful indeed, and the chances if anyone thus adorned departing the area unmugged or unpursued by a lynch mob are very slim. I form the impression more and more that people continue to accept this nonsense out of a secret preference for a wealthy, interesting-looking ripper. It's their way of keeping the bogeyman alive.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
The question always arises..'Why would Hutchinson's man flaunt his watch and chain in such a district?
I would suggest it was intentional, after he saw Mary approach him, and it would not surprise me if the watch and chain had significance in the murder of Mary Kelly.
I apologize if I am wrong , but did not Fiona Kendal , great grand-daughter of McCarthy mention on Casebook[ before leaving us] that Kelly had received a visit from a man claiming that Mary had stolen his watch, and McCarthy saw him off in his 'style''.
Question .. Was this man 'A' man?.
Did Ms Kendall actually give us a clue to who killed MJK, in his opinion, believing it was the man he saw off, and the motive being the theft of a watch, which obviously meant a lot to him...
possibility Folks..
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

There is one line of arguement about Kelly's murder that is often mentioned on these boards and annoys me greatly. That is the theory that Kelly was bedded for the night once Blotchy face left her.

I'm not sure why this "annoys" you. It is merely the evidence from the inquest, or rather the complete lack of evidence to suggest that she ventured out again. Yes, I would say it's rather unlikely that she ventured out again, given her extent of apparent intoxication at 11:45 as reported by Mary Cox, coupled with the fact that the weather was particularly poor and the client pickings would obviously have been very slim. Quite what "addiction" has to do with any of this I don't know. She wasn't going to obtain any more alcohol at that time, and the likelihood is that she assisted Blotchy with his ale pail before sinking into a drunken stupour. If she was concerned about any "serious rent arrears", she would hardly have behaved in this fashion, i.e. getting sozzled with Blotchy and singing for over an hour in her room.

[Ben]

14 miles is not "nothing", especially when the alleged jaunt took place in very poor conditions in the small hours of the morning in the full expectation that the place where he usually slept would have been closed by the time he arrived home. A point that is often overlooked is that an impoverished labourer in no regular employment is hardly likely to expend crucial energy reserves when work or work-seeking would have necessitated a very early start the next day. Self-imposed unnecessary sleep deprivation was not an option he was likely to have taken.

[The Good Michael]

14 miles of pretty much flat ground would have been nothing for a young man who was used to physical labor. I got back from Sicily (which I hated for this reason) where I couldn't rent a car, and I was walking, every day, at least 10 miles up and down the side of Mount Aetna. In one week I was so fit, but it was blazing hot there and no escaping it. A fall jaunt from Romford wold have been easy breezy comparatively. That was the end of July and you all know how hot the Mediterranean is.

Mike

[The Grave Maurice]

I would have said schlap

Well, then you would have been wrong...again.

[Wickerman]

Romford wasn't and isn't in easy walking distance

Google Earth shows the distance as 14 miles.
(Tower of L - Romford)

I don't think 'comfortable' holds any implication for length of stay.

Where did 'length of stay' come into it?

Jon

[Lechmere]

I would have said schlap

[The Grave Maurice]

I didn't mean to imply that people would go back and forth every day. I was saying that, if someone wanted to move from Romford to, say, Spitalfields, and stay there, it wasn't much of a schlep.

[Lechmere]

Romford wasn't and isn't in easy walking distance - you wouldn't want to do it every day. That is not to say that it was a terrible trek would have left someone (Hutchinson) exhausted and drained to the point of collapse (as some would have it).

I don't think 'comfortable' holds any implication for length of stay.
She wouldn't have said:
"Come back to my place. It's a dump but who cares you'll be done in 5 minutes".

[The Grave Maurice]

One of the lodginghouse owners lived in Romford, I think it was William Crossingham, but don't quote me on it....

Oh, we can quote you alright, Jon. Crossingham was born in, retired to, and was buried in, Romford. It's possible, I suppose, that he never actually left and simply popped into town to buy up property. But, as you say, it was within easy walking distance, so many East Enders may have had a connection to the place.

[Wickerman]

....Some posters seem to find it unlikely she went out again that night. As if we can rationalize the actions of an alcoholic drunken prostitute in Victorian London. It is middle class posters unable to comprehend the mind of an addict, or an ulterior motive from such posters.

I don't know about "middle-class", but you are spot on with "unable to comprehend".

Consider back to the exchange reported between Astrachan & Kelly, one line:

"She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable "

That sounds very much like an invitation to bed, not just a quicky under her raised skirt. And of course, in bed is where she was found.

Anyhow, with respect to Romford. We don't know who this George Hutchinson was, whether he originated from Romford and had been to see family. Or, was he working for someone back in Romford?
One of the lodginghouse owners lived in Romford, I think it was William Crossingham, but don't quote me on it, was he working for Crossingham? Possibly of no significance, scores of people in Whitechapel may have had connections to Romford.

Regards, Jon S.

[jason_c]

Jason:

There is one line of arguement about Kelly's murder that is often mentioned on these boards and annoys me greatly. That is the theory that Kelly was bedded for the night once Blotchy face left her.
Some posters seem to find it unlikely she went out again that night. As if we can rationalize the actions of an alcoholic drunken prostitute in Victorian London."

I think there are three main suggestions:

1. Kelly stayed inside, and the killer was let in by her.
2. Kelly stayed inside, and the killer sneaked in as she slept.
3. Kelly went back out on the streets, met her killer, and took him home.

Itīs anybodys guess what happened, but none of the scenarios can be dismissed.

On the whole, very little can be dismissed in the whole Ripper saga. Therein lies both the fascination and the frustration...

The best,
Fisherman

I agree the arguement cannot be dismissed.

Its simply that some folk are incredulous that anyone would go outside at 3 o'clock in the morning. If anyone would walk the streets at 3am it would be a prostitute with an alcohol problem, serious rent arrears, and a bed that was welcoming for more clients.

Yes, it does lead to both fascination and frustration with the case.

[Stephen Thomas]

Some posters seem to find it unlikely she went out again that night.

Yes indeed and with no evidence whatsoever.

[Fisherman]

Jason:

There is one line of arguement about Kelly's murder that is often mentioned on these boards and annoys me greatly. That is the theory that Kelly was bedded for the night once Blotchy face left her.
Some posters seem to find it unlikely she went out again that night. As if we can rationalize the actions of an alcoholic drunken prostitute in Victorian London."

I think there are three main suggestions:

1. Kelly stayed inside, and the killer was let in by her.
2. Kelly stayed inside, and the killer sneaked in as she slept.
3. Kelly went back out on the streets, met her killer, and took him home.

Itīs anybodys guess what happened, but none of the scenarios can be dismissed.

On the whole, very little can be dismissed in the whole Ripper saga. Therein lies both the fascination and the frustration...

The best,
Fisherman