Hutch's Man

[Sam Flynn]

Well, on the Torso thread Gary and Debra have done some excellent research, showing that job descriptions of the period, shown on census records, were not always accurate: apparently, a 67 year old lady's occupation is listed as horse knackerer!

To be fair, that particular census entry gives "Horse Flesh Vendor" as her occupation in large handwriting, with the word "knacker" added in superscript - probably meaning that she was a "Horse (Knacker's) Meat Dealer", rather than being a chopper-upper herself. There are other census entries which follow the same pattern.

[John G]

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!

Well, on the Torso thread Gary and Debra have done some excellent research, showing that job descriptions of the period, shown on census records, were not always accurate: apparently, a 67 year old lady's occupation is listed as horse knackerer!

Anyway, there's obviously a difference between full-time prostitute, and casual prostitute, something that is turned to out of desperation.

[Sam Flynn]

It is when you consider that 2 witnesses were privy to the state of Marys room at 1:30, and one again later before 3am.

But they didn't have it under surveillance during those times. Who's going to notice the click of a door and a handful of footfalls at, say, 2:15AM? It's not even as if Mary would have had to cross the courtyard either - her door practically opened into the entrance passage, and she could have been out of sight within seconds of leaving her room. Unless Cox was still hanging around, or Lewis was looking out of the Keylers' window directly at Mary's door, they weren't likely to notice anything.

[Michael W Richards]

Not necessarily. She could easily have slipped out at any time without anyone noticing. After all, Mr Blotchy did precisely that, whether he was the killer or not. Indeed, we only know that Kelly and Blotchy arrived together because Cox fortuitously happened to be in the right place at the right time.

That Kelly wasn't seen leaving is neither here nor there.

It is when you consider that 2 witnesses were privy to the state of Marys room at 1:30, and one again later before 3am. Neither saw or heard anything, despite the fact that one of the witnesses was in the only exit route just before the room went dark and silent. The fact that the witnesses in the courtyard were dormant by 3am indicates that Blotchy may well have left when no-one could have possibly seen him, maybe after 3am.

[Sam Flynn]

To be seen out we should first have some evidence that she ever left the room, yes?

Not necessarily. She could easily have slipped out at any time without anyone noticing. After all, Mr Blotchy did precisely that, whether he was the killer or not. Indeed, we only know that Kelly and Blotchy arrived together because Cox fortuitously happened to be in the right place at the right time.

That Kelly wasn't seen leaving is neither here nor there.

[Michael W Richards]

Ok Jon, Ill address them in your quote;

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.

To be seen out we should first have some evidence that she ever left the room, yes? Do we? No. we only have her entering the room, singing off an on for over an hour while drunk, then the room goes quiet and dark. For Blotchy we can presume that he left the room at some point, he is not there when Bowyer looks in. So he left. When..is a really good question.


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! There is no medical testimony that has the TOD near 1am.
What evidence do we have that she was sleeping? - none! I never said she need to be asleep at 1:30, just that she had bedded down for the night.
What evidence do we have that she was out on the street? - several people saw her! Several people we don't know even knew Mary Kelly, and one witness is chastised at the Inquest for bring what seems to be a frivolous account.
No prizes for guessing which is the more compelling argument. Maybe there should be.

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?

That's both insulting and inaccurate Jon, Ive read what appears to be far more than the average bear on peripheral matters such as the life of Unfortunates, the surgical standards of the day, immigration, burials, anything that has bearing on the ever increasing materials Ive read on the subject itself. Plus I understand life from both the bottom and the top, and have an understanding of what it is to be human in both scenarios. How dignity and pride can mean more than a hot meal and warm bed at times. Liz Stride demonstrated her will to have her name not be associated with streetwalkers, she had run a coffee shop, she had been a nanny and housekeeper. She was employed as a charwoman at the time of her death, and she had been paid for cleaning rooms that afternoon. We don't know where that money went, but I suspect some is pinned on her jacket and some is in her hands when she dies. It didn't go to drink. Mary on the other hand is seemingly a lifer streetwalker.

They both needed money. What other reason is required?Did they? Neither needed doss money for that night, and neither could buy food or booze at the time of their death. Mary was already in arrears almost 3 weeks, McCarthy must have just about given up any hope of having that cleared up soon. "See if you can collect "some rent" was Bowyers mission. And Liz must have had plans. She felt she would not be returning to her regular digs that night, but by leaving the fabric swatch, she indicates she will be again soon. So in fact Jon, the absolute opposite of your statement is the truth.

[Wickerman]

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?

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Wickerman]

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!

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[John G]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Leanne]

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]

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe it was decided the crime scene might be too traumatic for Joe.

I'd think it very likely that they did, Michael.

[Michael W Richards]

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.