Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutch's Man

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

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    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.
    He said " I identify her by her hair and eyes" Sam, and if that's the case it might well be proof that her head was all he viewed, as I suggested.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      He said " I identify her by her hair and eyes" Sam, and if that's the case it might well be proof that her head was all he viewed, as I suggested.
      Yes, that would work - the customary quick lift of a blanket at the head end, after the face had been cleaned up and the wounds stitched closed.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

        He said " I identify her by her hair and eyes" Sam, and if that's the case it might well be proof that her head was all he viewed, as I suggested.
        come again ?
        we can't rewrite the testimony to suit here.
        'ear and eyes'
        this was never questioned by the coroner or in one single press report .
        As it wasn't , and due to his accent , we must conclude that he emphasised his words by indicating with his hand ,as we do instinctively during description events .It's a human instinct.
        Someone stops us for directions..... we say "you go down the A50" and at the same time we're pointing .... without even realising what we're doing .
        Had he just used words we would have to ask why the coroner didn't ask him to confirm this and why nobody from the press got it wrong .
        'hair' is nothing more than ripperology not liking that it was an ear , which according to Bond , was partially severed and the realisation that it would be an impossible identification .
        You can't identify a partial ear so let's change history .....
        You can lead a horse to water.....

        Comment


        • My apologies
          Seems the Echo and Morning advertiser did say hair .
          The official transcript , Telegraph,Star and Evening News say ear so I stand corrected but still , I still go with the official transcript if the press are split as they seem to be
          Last edited by packers stem; 06-09-2019, 07:28 PM.
          You can lead a horse to water.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

            .....'hair' is nothing more than ripperology not liking that it was an ear , which according to Bond , was partially severed and the realisation that it would be an impossible identification .
            You can't identify a partial ear so let's change history .....
            Early reports describe the ears as removed, or partly removed. So as they were mutilated, and unless Mary Kelly was a Vulcan, her ears would be unidentifiable.
            Her hair was her most identifiable feature.

            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              He said " I identify her by her hair and eyes" Sam, and if that's the case it might well be proof that her head was all he viewed, as I suggested.
              Thats it Michael, because it was customary to wrap the body with only the head exposed. Nichols is shown the same way.
              In preparation for the inquest.

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                Thats it Michael, because it was customary to wrap the body with only the head exposed. Nichols is shown the same way.
                In preparation for the inquest.

                Which I believe then retires the question as to whether he ever saw her in the room, and answers my question as to why he would be only able to identify those 2 features. It bothered me. I imagined he would be sought out when she is discovered, and then brought to the room. One of the first things they needed was an ID, to begin any kind of investigation. Maybe it was decided the crime scene might be too traumatic for Joe.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                  Maybe it was decided the crime scene might be too traumatic for Joe.
                  I'd think it very likely that they did, Michael.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  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.
                    BARNETT TESTIFIED:

                    "After her husband's death deceased went to Cardiff to a cousin.
                    [Coroner] Did she live there long ? - Yes, she was in an infirmary there for eight or nine months. SHE WAS FOLLOWING A BAD LIFE WITH HER COUSIN, and as I often told her, was the cause of her downfall.
                    [Coroner] After she left Cardiff did she come direct to London ? - Yes. She was in a GAY HOUSE in the West-end, but in what part she did not say. .................................................. ...........but she described a man named Joseph Fleming, who came to Pennington-street, A BAD HOUSE. bad house, where she stayed.

                    I'D SAY SHE WAS AND ASKED BARNETT TO READ THE NEWSPAPERS TO HER ABOUT THE RIPPER.





                    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.

                    [/QUOTE]

                    Comment


                    • I like that post Leanne. Although I think Id be a little more lenient with Ms Cox personally. Shes quite a valuable resource here if she is honestly recalling her memories of the times in question, and she provides this information knowing that she is portraying herself as some desperate street walker trying to get a single client. Not a flattering self portrayal, so why would she be ok with it? Maybe because its the truth, and she is trying to help. Unlike another witness who 4 days later, after the Inquest, claims to have bumped into his friend after midnight that night, the murder victim, and he saw her enter her room with a toff.

                      I believe we know Mary entered her room just before midnight, IF Ms Cox can be relied upon, and that's all we do know. Ergo, Blotchy is, and has been, Suspect #1.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Leanne View Post

                        BARNETT TESTIFIED:

                        "After her husband's death deceased went to Cardiff to a cousin.
                        [Coroner] Did she live there long ? - Yes, she was in an infirmary there for eight or nine months. SHE WAS FOLLOWING A BAD LIFE WITH HER COUSIN, and as I often told her, was the cause of her downfall.
                        [Coroner] After she left Cardiff did she come direct to London ? - Yes. She was in a GAY HOUSE in the West-end, but in what part she did not say. .................................................. ...........but she described a man named Joseph Fleming, who came to Pennington-street, A BAD HOUSE. bad house, where she stayed.

                        I'D SAY SHE WAS AND ASKED BARNETT TO READ THE NEWSPAPERS TO HER ABOUT THE RIPPER.





                        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.
                        [/QUOTE]

                        Regarding the reference to the "gay house". We don't know what her job role involved, it could have been serving the drinks or cleaning the rooms! Note: "In what part she did not say."

                        Put simply, all we have is hearsay evidence from a questionable witness, which doesn't really get us very far.
                        Last edited by John G; 06-13-2019, 10:21 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John G View Post
                          Regarding the reference to the "gay house". We don't know what her job role involved, it could have been serving the drinks or cleaning the rooms! Note: "In what part she did not say."

                          Put simply, all we have is hearsay evidence from a questionable witness, which doesn't really get us very far.[/QUOTE]


                          We do know John that it was during that time she was an "escort" to someone who took her to Paris, so serving drinks might be in the picture, but I doubt cleaning rooms was.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John G View Post

                            Put simply, all we have is hearsay evidence from a questionable witness, which doesn't really get us very far.
                            You're comment would have meaning if no-one had said anything about her being a prostitute. Yet there is plenty of opinion, and every witness is "questionable", in your opinion.

                            How about you taking a turn, tell this forum what evidence there is to show Kelly was not a prostitute.

                            Mary Kelly's Death Certificate.
                            Column 5, Occupation - Prostitute.


                            How's that for hearsay!

                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              You're comment would have meaning if no-one had said anything about her being a prostitute. Yet there is plenty of opinion, and every witness is "questionable", in your opinion.

                              How about you taking a turn, tell this forum what evidence there is to show Kelly was not a prostitute.

                              Mary Kelly's Death Certificate.
                              Column 5, Occupation - Prostitute.


                              How's that for hearsay!
                              Theres no issue with categorizing Mary by her only known occupation Jon, but there is with a presumption that despite evidence that she was working very little at the time and that she had no compelling reason to return to the great outdoors, she must have gone out again because she was a prostitute.

                              When her inebriation is factored in, then a silent and dark room shortly after the singing ended, we have a very compelling reason to presume she was in there and tucked in for the night. People use this same "prostitute" argument for Liz Stride, evidently ignoring the fact that she had steady work at the time, and that before leaving Sweden she actually had her name removed from the prostitutes registry. No small feat at that time, she needed written confirmation of legitimate work for one. She had legitimate work since she was in London. Not to say she never solicited, maybe she did, just to state that the evidence suggests that Mary, and Liz, had no need to solicit on the nights they were killed.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                Theres no issue with categorizing Mary by her only known occupation Jon, but there is with a presumption that despite evidence that she was working very little at the time and that she had no compelling reason to return to the great outdoors, she must have gone out again because she was a prostitute.
                                Not at all Michael, if no-one saw her out after 1:00am. then what you say would be justified. However, people did see her out on the street with another man, so your point lacks jutification.

                                When her inebriation is factored in, then a silent and dark room shortly after the singing ended, we have a very compelling reason to presume she was in there and tucked in for the night.
                                Nothing compelling there Michael.
                                There can be three reason's why her room is dark & quiet. Kelly is either dead already, sleeping, or out on the street.
                                What evidence do we have that she was dead? - none!
                                What evidence do we have that she was sleeping? - none!
                                What evidence do we have that she was out on the street? - several people saw her!
                                No prizes for guessing which is the more compelling argument.


                                People use this same "prostitute" argument for Liz Stride, evidently ignoring the fact that she had steady work at the time,...
                                You've never read about the life of the destitute in the East End have you Michael. Laundresses, Matchmakers, Brushmakers, all earning 4-6 shillings per week on 11-12 hour days. To supplement their meagre income many turned to casual prostitution.
                                How much per week was Stride earning as a part-time cleaner, a few pence a day perhaps?

                                Not to say she never solicited, maybe she did, just to state that the evidence suggests that Mary, and Liz, had no need to solicit on the nights they were killed.
                                They both needed money. What other reason is required?

                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X