Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutch's Man

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

  • And to suggest the latter H matches toppy is hardly surprising.
    It's an everyday H
    Would match millions , including mine
    I certainly wouldn't write the first one .
    You seem to wish to ignore that signatures are personal , and although they can vary slightly , the capital letter of the surname would not vary so dramatically .
    Unless you had 'forgotten' how you had signed the first sheet and were unable to check back .
    Somebody signing a name they weren't accustomed to signing may possibly make such a mistake
    You can lead a horse to water.....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      The Britannia-man was out on the street at 3:00 am.

      Do you know what Aaron Kozminski looked like?
      Is there any proof that she was involved in soliciting during the time she was with Barnett, or for that matter Fleming? Barnett certainly didn't say so at the inquest. You also missed out the most pertinent part of the Marie Harvey quote: "I don't believe that she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so to keep herself from starvation."

      It's therefore possible that she, in desperation, returned to prostitution to pay the rent, and for food, after Barnett left. We simply don't know. And we're certainly not entitled to assume that she would have seen several men that night; a reasonable inference from the Harvey quote is that she would not.

      Evidence that she went out at all on the night of her murder is weak. We have Hutchinson's dubious account, and Cox's questionable account. And that's just about it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by John G View Post

        Is there any proof that she was involved in soliciting during the time she was with Barnett, or for that matter Fleming? Barnett certainly didn't say so at the inquest. You also missed out the most pertinent part of the Marie Harvey quote: "I don't believe that she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so to keep herself from starvation."

        It's therefore possible that she, in desperation, returned to prostitution to pay the rent, and for food, after Barnett left. We simply don't know. And we're certainly not entitled to assume that she would have seen several men that night; a reasonable inference from the Harvey quote is that she would not.

        Evidence that she went out at all on the night of her murder is weak. We have Hutchinson's dubious account, and Cox's questionable account. And that's just about it.
        It was stated that Barnett didn't like when she went out to work in the streets, so yeah, he was aware of her occupation. He was also aware when she wasn't working, illustrated by his daily visits to give her money after he had left the room. Mary was in arrears to the tune of almost three weeks rent, nothing she could ever gain traction on by going back out after getting hammered and home by midnight, and she had apparently eaten something already as well.She, in all practical terms, was safe from imminent eviction, and Bowyers visit that morning was to see "IF some rent could be collected".

        Mary, by the back story we are given, is a young woman who likely had looks, and perhaps charm, that early on allowed her to sell her favors for money, she did so in upper class fashion for a time. Even going to Paris as a "consort". But she perhaps has now played the young beauty card too long...she is tough, and she is streetwise now, but she is not someone who had ever had to resort to the groveling kind of soliciting that went on in those streets before. She is maybe less able to latch on to someone to pay the bills now. This may haven been the downturn that tragically altered her future, perhaps its small mercy she didn't have to live the life she seemed to have before her for very long. One of abject poverty, constant exposure to starvation, essentially begging for scraps late at night and turning tricks to get them.

        She was not a brothel consort anymore.
        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 06-07-2019, 11:40 AM.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          The Britannia-man was out on the street at 3:00 am.

          Do you know what Aaron Kozminski looked like?
          Sorry Wickerman, I don't know what he looked like, but Kos sounded as if he would frighten ladies, but I suppose the Police knew him and he would have been pulled up. I really truly do not think the Ripper accosted potential victims when he could be seen, not quite 100% sure, but pretty darn close!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            It was stated that Barnett didn't like when she went out to work in the streets, so yeah, he was aware of her occupation. He was also aware when she wasn't working, illustrated by his daily visits to give her money after he had left the room. Mary was in arrears to the tune of almost three weeks rent, nothing she could ever gain traction on by going back out after getting hammered and home by midnight, and she had apparently eaten something already as well.She, in all practical terms, was safe from imminent eviction, and Bowyers visit that morning was to see "IF some rent could be collected".

            Mary, by the back story we are given, is a young woman who likely had looks, and perhaps charm, that early on allowed her to sell her favors for money, she did so in upper class fashion for a time. Even going to Paris as a "consort". But she perhaps has now played the young beauty card too long...she is tough, and she is streetwise now, but she is not someone who had ever had to resort to the groveling kind of soliciting that went on in those streets before. She is maybe less able to latch on to someone to pay the bills now. This may haven been the downturn that tragically altered her future, perhaps its small mercy she didn't have to live the life she seemed to have before her for very long. One of abject poverty, constant exposure to starvation, essentially begging for scraps late at night and turning tricks to get them.

            She was not a brothel consort anymore.
            Aa I noted, the time spent in Paris could have been as a consquence of abduction and forced prostitution. Barnett contradicted himself, i.e. the more salacious account, publicised in the papers, was not consistent with his inquest account given under oath. He therefore joins a long list of unreliable witnesses, assuming he was just a witness. Didn't Bruce Paley argue that he was JtR?

            Very good point about her being free of imminent eviction. As Marie Harvey's account suggests, she would wouldn't have solicited unless totally desperate. And I suggest, particularly not during the Ripper scare.

            Comment


            • Where did Barnett view MJK to confirm her identity? Was it in Room 13 or at a morgue?

              Comment


              • I don't think it's stated but, given that it would have been a formal identification, I suspect it would have been at Shoreditch mortuary. I can't see the police being so callous as to show him Kelly's mangled body on the blood-soaked bed they once shared, to say nothing of the flesh and organs strewn around it.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
                  Where did Barnett view MJK to confirm her identity? Was it in Room 13 or at a morgue?
                  Peeping through the window according to his interview with the star .
                  we've nothing else to go on .
                  Shame he couldn't be bothered to tell everyone how to open the door .....
                  You can lead a horse to water.....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by John G View Post

                    Is there any proof that she was involved in soliciting during the time she was with Barnett,...
                    Barnett said he didn't like her going on the streets, so he kept her at home by him going to work.
                    Why? - because she was a prostitute!
                    Once he was out of work she returned to prostitution (according to Barnett), then he left her.
                    At what point is it not clear that Kelly was prostituting herself?


                    Barnett certainly didn't say so at the inquest.
                    John, have you ever been to an inquest?
                    Witnesses do not speak until they are spoken to, and they only answer the questioned posed to them.
                    Was Barnett asked if Kelly had returned to prostitution? - No!
                    So why would he say anything about it?

                    It's the same reason nothing was said at the inquest about Kelly being out on the street after 2:00, the subject never came up.

                    You also missed out the most pertinent part of the Marie Harvey quote: "I don't believe that she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so to keep herself from starvation."
                    As opposed to getting a proper job?
                    Question:- Why turn to prostitution to stave off starvation?
                    Answer: - Because she is a prostitute, what else can she do?.

                    And we're certainly not entitled to assume that she would have seen several men that night; a reasonable inference from the Harvey quote is that she would not.
                    Kelly would not have returned to the streets if Barnett was still giving her money - this we all know.
                    Kelly was a prostitute before Barnett picker her up, what occupation would you expect her to return to when times get desperate again?

                    Evidence that she went out at all on the night of her murder is weak. We have Hutchinson's dubious account, and Cox's questionable account. And that's just about it.
                    John, dismiss all the witnesses, then claim there is insufficient evidence, or claim the evidence is weak.
                    It's a well established procedure here on Casebook.

                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Macnaghten.

                      He is a ripper suspect too.

                      I know I know, but the word suspect now means anyone who was suspected, no matter what!


                      And since you cannot prove beyond any doubt that he was definitely not Macnaghten, his candidacy will remain!

                      This is how some posters do their ripperology nowadays.



                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                        Macnaghten.

                        He is a ripper suspect too.

                        I know I know, but the word suspect now means anyone who was suspected, no matter what!


                        And since you cannot prove beyond any doubt that he was definitely not Macnaghten, his candidacy will remain!

                        This is how some posters do their ripperology nowadays.



                        The Baron
                        Who suspected him?
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Wow. Now we're getting leakage. From what I suspect was a Suspect post (Druitt) grafted to the modified generic Kelly-Thong which this has become. Sort of. Which in fact garnered a reply in the form of (are you sitting down?) that's right, a question. All boats rise with the tide I always say. Kind of like keeping that old 56' Ford running. You know, the one your brother tried to convert it from a stick shift to a four in the floor before he went to Nam'. It didn't work but somehow Darryl across the street was able to get it running anyhoo.

                          Roy
                          Sink the Bismark

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            I don't think it's stated but, given that it would have been a formal identification, I suspect it would have been at Shoreditch mortuary. I can't see the police being so callous as to show him Kelly's mangled body on the blood-soaked bed they once shared, to say nothing of the flesh and organs strewn around it.
                            I never found a specific reference to the place either Sam, but I suspect it could not have been from the window in the courtyard as some reports stated. He used her "eyes" as one of only 2 points of familiar reference, and as is clear in one room photo, her eyes are not visible . They are covered by a flap or flaps of forehead.

                            And I pointed out long ago, someone who had intimate knowledge of anothers body would I think recognize just a calf or a foot or a hand. Overall size. Shoulder width. Ive wondered why Barnett could only identify 2 features, since we can see the others I mention in the photos. I think its because he saw her when the rest of her body was covered. After it left the room. That's why both familiar features are above the shoulder.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              Ive wondered why Barnett could only identify 2 features.
                              I don't think it was a case of Barnett only being able to identify two features; more likely, it was that only two features needed to be named in order to formally confirm the identificaton.

                              I don't think the police/coroner required a full inventory of every single feature that Barnett recognised, of which I'm sure there would have been many more.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • More likely the fact Barnett mentioned her facial features, "hair & eyes", though some reports have "ear and eyes", is because Barnett is talking about just moments ago.

                                Barnett said this at the inquest, the witnesses had just returned from the mortuary where they had all viewed the body. As was customary the entire body is covered with the exception of the head, or face, in preparation for the inquest.
                                Barnett is not talking about the day of the murder, but today, the day of the inquest.

                                In support of this is the report as given in the East London Advertiser, where we read:
                                "He had seen the body and identified it by the ears and eyes, which were all that could be seen."

                                As the E.L.A. was just one report, some might call it bull$hit, but then in the Daily Telegraph we read:
                                "I have seen the body, and I identify it by the ear and eyes, which are all that I can recognise;"

                                This is present tense, he had just returned from viewing the body.
                                How, or by whom the body was identified on the morning of the murder is never stated.


                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X