Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[perrymason]

You can't mention "more evidence" until you first provide any evidence at all. You just make stuff up off the top of your head and expect everyone else to buy into it.

I think you have something else confused, I have cited some points that are extensions of things we have statements or records to use as a basis for. Things used as "evidence" in the Inquest and for the Investigation. I eliminated the statements that the Police did.

You've said things like Blotchy Man was known to be a client and George Hutchinson's witness account is credible, and Mary brought clients to her home. Without any corroboration at all. No press, no witnesses, no statements.

So, Who's making what up again?

Best regards.

[Ben]

I can't see why the latter would go down to Whitechapel unless it was on some kind of charitable mission

Indeed, Chava, and even then the gents in question would have had enough familiarity with the district's poverty to avoid dressing up in conspicuous and opulent attire.

Oh, and to the coward who disappeared from this message board because he couldn't face being repeatedly called out on his nonsense, and who I've just learned is calling others "liars" elsewhere, here's a novel idea: how about actually contributing to this discussion if you're interested in it rather than sniping about it from a distance?

[Dan Norder]

You've said things like Blotchy Man was known to be a client and George Hutchinson's witness account is credible, and Mary brought clients to her home. Without any corroboration at all. No press, no witnesses, no statements.

So, Who's making what up again?

Who's making things up? You are, starting with making up claims about what I said that aren't even true.

What you claimed was that there was NO evidence or statements, etc. that supported the idea that Kelly brought clients home. I pointed out Cox and Hutchinson, which, while not proof certainly do suggest it, and quite strongly. I don't have to prove that Hutchinson's account was 100% credible -- not that I have said it was -- to prove that statements exist supporting the idea.

So the bottom line is the evidence that exists, while not conclusive, points to the rather matter-of-fact and mundane concept that she brought clients home, just like other prostitutes living in Miller's Court have been proven to have done. You have no evidence whatsoever that indicates that she didn't bring clients home. You attacking statements you wish to have thrown out entirely does nothing to prove your claim that the evidence shows that she didn't bring clients home. At best, all that would do is make the evidence inconclusive. Even if there were no evidence either way I'd think common sense would indicate that of course a prostitute would take clients home to have sex, as that's what they do. So between common sense, two different witness reports suggesting it, and the activities of other prostitutes in the court, you decide instead to believe the exact opposite: that even though Kelly was a prostitute that the strange drunken sailor seen being brought into her room was obviously there for completely innocent reasons and that she would obviously never do such a thing.

This would be similar to you declaring that evidence shows that the sky is never blue and then, when I point out reports of the sky having been blue on five different days this week, insisting that my argument that the sky is blue every day of every year is wrong.

In short, you're either not very good at understanding what people write and looking at evidence for understanding or you're a very bad and pathetic debater hoping to invent up some nonsensical reason why people should believe what you say despite knowing it makes no sense just so you can win an argument.

And, frankly, either way what you have to say isn't worth anyone's time.

[Natalie Severn]

Ben and Chava,
The East End at the time was the centre of Theatre Land.Its one of the reasons poor old Sickert"s name has been dragged in so often as he loved going to the East End"s theatre land and painting the playhouse actors in action---there are dozens of such pictures and brilliant they are too.
He was one toff who was a "regular"theatre East End Theatre goer.

I doubt very much he "dressed down" for the theatre or that anyone else from his class did.
That week I believe the Vaudeville star, Dan Lemo,was performing in Commercial Street.He drew a full house being ,like Marie Lloyd his contemporary,one of the most famous vaudeville stars and audience magnets of all time.

Loved hearing about your folk living in Whitechapel, Chava.That street-Mulberry Street, is where Pizer,wrongly called" Leather Apron" was hunted down by Sgt Thick------quite a famous landmark!
Cheers
Norma

[The Grave Maurice]

Cheers
Norma

Pardon the complete side issue here, but when did you change your name to Norma, Natalie...uh, Norma?

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

Why do you doubt that Sickert or anyone else dressed down when it was so obviously prudent to do so, given the nature of the district, even disregarding the fact that police and vigilantes were on the lookout for anyone remotely conspicuous during the ripper murders?

As for the East End being "the centre of theatre land", are you sure about that? What about the theatres in the West End where, presumably, most of them lived? I'd venture a guess that the majority of attendees at bawdy spit 'n' sawdust local theatres were not "toffs".

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ben,
I have read about Sickert"s attendance at the East End Theatre"s quite often but the book that gave me the information about the East End and its theatres was an autobiography of Marie Lloyd by Fiona .......cant think of her surname but its a wonderful book.
The theatres of the East End are written about by Charlie Chaplin too ,a little, in his autobiography.His mother was a great friend of McCarthy"s son,Steve, when they were both vaudeville artists there.Marie Lloyd was a great friend of the McCarthy"s who she supped with in the Sugar Loaf pub in Hanbury Street, she was said to have helped all the McCarthy children get onto the stage.The Film Star Kay Kendall of the "Genevieve" film[Rex Harrison"s wife] was John McCarthy"s granddaughter.So Dorset Street could almost be said to have been a breeding ground for East End theatre!

[Chava]

Hi Norma/Natalie!

Yes, I knew that about Mulberry St and quizzed my mama-in-law mercilessly. She remembered quite a lot about the area--she was born in 1909. But she never heard anything about the Ripper which could be either because he killed prostitutes and nice young Jewish girls were not supposed to know that they existed; or because people who remembered it remembered it as a shameful thing and didn't talk about it. In the East End at the time there was very much a feeling of 'us' and 'them' around the Jewish areas and in general the two populations didn't mix much.

The thing about the music-hall: you're right that lots of people came to hear the East End acts. But I think, if they came from up West, they probably came and left in carriages. I doubt they roamed around much. In the way that I wouldn't roam around, say, Harlesden at night now. It's close to West Hampstead, and I have pals in West Hampstead. But when I visit them I go home in a cab, not on public transport. Because I did that once and it was terrifying!

[The Grave Maurice]

Chava,

John Pizer's family lived at 22 Mulberry Street. Do you happen to know the address of your in-laws' house? And, of course, the current Mulberry Street is not in the same location as the Mulberry Street of 1888, but one of our colleagues with a hoard of old maps will have to remind me exactly when that change occurred.

[perrymason]

Dan,

In your rebuttal of my contention that there are no witnesses or other statements saying Mary ever was seen taking a CLIENT to her room, you said...

"You mean other than the statements of Mary Ann Cox and George Hutchinson, as documented in virtually every Ripper book in the world...?"

Did you just miss the word "client" and thought you saw unidentified acquaintance?....and then added further...

"What you claimed was that there was NO evidence or statements, etc. that supported the idea that Kelly brought clients home. I pointed out Cox and Hutchinson, which, while not proof certainly do suggest it, and quite strongly. I don't have to prove that Hutchinson's account was 100% credible -- not that I have said it was -- to prove that statements exist supporting the idea."

Now you are always claiming to know better than virtually ever other poster here, yet you don't know George Hutchinson's account was believed for less than a week? And that Mary Ann Cox never even suggested that Blotchy man was likely a client?

Then this...

"Even if there were no evidence either way I'd think common sense would indicate that of course a prostitute would take clients home to have sex, as that's what they do."

I guess you hadnt read that most of the women referred to as "unfortunate" had no home, and traded sex for almost every need in life. And since they were homeless and worked outdoors on streets and alleys...they were referred to as "street whores", Mary Kelly was referred to as a "street whore" by her ex live in lover, implying that if she did whore while they were together, coupled with his statements about her lifestyle and his dislike of it, she did so on the streets. You do understand the outdoors vs indoors in terms of whoring, and choices, dont you?

Then this...

"So between common sense, two different witness reports suggesting it, and the activities of other prostitutes in the court, you decide instead to believe the exact opposite: that even though Kelly was a prostitute that the strange drunken sailor seen being brought into her room was obviously there for completely innocent reasons and that she would obviously never do such a thing."

Thats a croc, Ive said theres no evidence she ever brought clients home. If you think every man that enters a womans room is her client, thats your perogative. Then Barnett was one, and likely Joe Fleming, maybe Bowyer too, why not McCarthy....Proof for your counter-contention is like many of yours, non-existant,... yet for my suggestion of him accompanying him home, we have on record that she sang off and on for over an hour. Whats more likely scenario Dan....maybe if you rub your temples for blood flow it would help.

And your piece de resistance....

"In short, you're either not very good at understanding what people write and looking at evidence for understanding or you're a very bad and pathetic debater hoping to invent up some nonsensical reason why people should believe what you say despite knowing it makes no sense just so you can win an argument."

I believe that some others here might acknowledge enjoying debating me on some issues, and perhaps are also frustrated with my stubborn streak. They have great knowledge and far better manners than you, so I listen more intently to what they have to say. Its not that I dont put stock in what others say...its that I invest minutely in what you say. Because 90% of what you post is just attacking someone or something. I dont believe that has anything to teach me.

You have evidence in what is on paper, yet you seek to introduce clients in the room...even when its clear she could only have been doing it for less than a week of all her time at 13 Millers Court, credible fur cuffed suspect Id's, reasons for Mary whoring that have no foundation in the facts we do know about that evening and are contrary to all the prior Canon victims circumstances, and a transformation of a killer who kills middle aged whores outdoors working into a newborn indoor scourge of young pretty females sleeping.

I can honestly say that you are one of the most involved here in the field of Ripperology, and should be credible, but I dont think with the natural respect that would follow, because your posts or defense of your statements are just offense, and offensive.

I dont need to see a reply, and for the benefit of others here Ill cancel my subscription to this thread.

Cheers.

[Observer]

If you believe this, then may I suggest you look at my website 'lovely beachfront homes in Wigan for sale cheap at $1M each.' You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to make such a statement. Word of mouth would have been rampant in the LVP right after the murder and it wouldn't have died down for days if not weeks. Please don't think that Sarah Lewis kept quiet, went to the police, gave her statement and then went home and had a nice cup of tea. She would have told all her pals and they'd have told all their pals. Add that to the journos who were buzzing around the area like flies round a week-old Eccles cake and you have a situation where information is leaking like crazy. Hutchinson says he's been on the tramp and so didn't hear about the death but I find this extraordinarily difficult to believe. His statement may or may not be the real deal, but to take everything he says at face value is a mistake in my opinion. And to believe that he was 'oblivious' of Lewis's statement when you have no direct knowledge of his movements apart from his own account of them is naive at best.

King Dick of Wigan lives in one of those beachfront homes does he not?


Do you have any knowledge of his movements, apart from leaning on a street corner ears straining to hear of any news of Kelly's murder.


Take off your flat cap and neckerchief, and refrain from singing that famous Cockney ditty "Me old bamboo, me old bamboo" my old friend. Yes that's it, as soon as Kelly is murdered that famous old Cockney pastime begins, "bring on the chinwaggers". The gossip passes from street to street mouth to mouth, ala an old Pinewood flic from the 1950's. Come into the real world Chava. Out of all the detail from the inquest, Hutchinson learns by word of mouth that Lewis sighted a suspect in Dorset Street at 2:30 a.m. Hallo i'll have some of that he says, and decides even though he's not the man in question to concoct a **** and bull story down at the nick.

Look the reason that he had all the time in the world to concoct that ridiculous story of his (three days in fact) was because he was that man in Dorset street at 2:30 a.m. 9th Nov 1888.

[Chava]

Oh for God's sake, Observer, please stop making stuff up! "My Old Bamboo" indeed. You're mixing it up with "My Old Dutch"...

You have seen the illustrations of the crowds outside of Millers Court after the murder was discovered. You know that there were people living or staying in Millers Court at that time. Sarah Lewis says she wasn't allowed to leave until 2.30 pm. Do you honestly think that the people who left there left in absolute and respectful silence? Because I don't think that's likely.

That having been said, I don't know for a fact that Lewis blabbed to her pals ahead of the inquest. But I don't know she didn't. And given all the reporters hanging around looking for a story--and given that it's an old reporters' trick to get a bit of info and then say 'I heard that...' in order to hear some more, I think it's a possible hypothesis. And certainly one that has as much validity as your 'Hutchinson emerges from his cone of silence to give us the best shot of the victim and the killer yet'.

This was one of the most sensational murders every committed in the UK. I can't believe you think that people didn't talk about it, conjecture about it, swap stories of the victim. In fact I'm certain they did. Do you want to know why? Because I am old enough to remember the Mary Bell case and I was living in Newcastle at the time. Oh the stories that went round! And some of them were even true! And if I heard them in my lovely safe middle-class enclave of Gosforth light years removed from where the killings took place, can you imagine how much talking-up was done in the actual area of the murders, which was then a dreadful but close-knit slum in the Westmoreland Road area. Everyone down there was the last to see the first poor little boy as he wandered around--he was only about 4 and probably didn't wander very far. But he was a bonny and polite little lad and stopped to have a chat with all of them...

[caz]

The thing about the music-hall: you're right that lots of people came to hear the East End acts. But I think, if they came from up West, they probably came and left in carriages. I doubt they roamed around much. In the way that I wouldn't roam around, say, Harlesden at night now. It's close to West Hampstead, and I have pals in West Hampstead. But when I visit them I go home in a cab, not on public transport. Because I did that once and it was terrifying!

Hi Chava,

Everyone walked in those days, not just those with holes in their shoes! If the clerks and the businessmen with easy access to both the East End and the West End wanted to go to the theatre, they would have happily strolled into the East End and paid to see a show there, and it wouldn't have eaten into their hard-earned cash as much as taking a carriage up West. I think we have to get rid of this notion of only two extremes with nothing in between, that effectively forgets millions of ordinary men who lived or worked side by side with toffs and paupers, many of whom would have treated the Whitechapel unfortunates as a cheap and cheerful leisure activity to compliment any cheap and cheerful night out.

As for today's West Hampstead, my daughter also has pals there, as she lived in King's College first-year accommodation off the Finchley Rd last year. Now sharing a house in New Cross, and commuting to Waterloo for lectures, she either stays overnight when she sees her old pals or takes a bus home, usually a night bus. She almost never takes a cab anywhere and swears by public transport. So different people have different perspectives on life and what they find terrifying, even concerning the same places. Right now, she is more terrified of the thought of leaving her revision notes on the bus, or the bus being late when she has an exam, than she is of having to use public transport like the majority of Londoners.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz,

Don't fall into the Perry Mason trap. He loves being controversial with the case to get attention and cause frustration. Most recently he's suggested that Kate Eddowes, along with Stride and Kelly, was not a Ripper victim. Even the Swedes wouldn't touch that one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Don't fret, Tom. The trap hasn't been built that wants to cope with Caz. And I don't do frustration. I see it as a wholly unnecessary waste of energy.

I love my swedes mashed - with butter. They don't touch the sides.

- Urination is an inescapable body function, getting paid to have sex isnt.

Okay, Perry, I’ll bite.

So how do you think Mary lived when Joe couldn’t afford to keep her in food and drink?

- It is widely known and accepted that Mary Jane Kelly was a "street whore" at the time of her death, when she chose to work.

So how is that treating her with any more respect as an actual person than I have been doing?

And how did being a “street whore” (I rarely use the w word myself these days, when I’m not quoting someone else) not make her equally vulnerable to whoever had attacked other “street whores” that year?

Apart from which, you still haven't shown how it was impossible for Blotchy to have met Mary on the 'street', learned from her after loosening her lips with a drink or three that she had her own room, and offered her an incentive she would hardly have refused to take him back there for afters.

- Joe Barnett was said by witnesses close to Mary to be opposed to Mary selling herself "on the streets"

What has that got to do with the reality of needing to eat and drink if suddenly no money is coming in?

- Its is very difficult or near impossible for a woman to sing while engaging in oral sex, or any other kind.

Who said anything about oral sex? But in any case you have lived a very sheltered life is all I can say. Can you think of a sweeter way for Blotchy (or any other male ‘guest’ for that matter) to stop a working girl from singing about violets than by showing her a shilling and pointing Percy in the direction of her cake hole? Another way would be to treat violets with violence and slice her bloomin’ throat.

- It is suggested by a witness close to Mary that she may have been receiving money from both Joe Barnett and Joe Fleming simultaneously.

So what? I agree she was probably sponging or two-timing when she wasn’t out soliciting, and she was probably soliciting when not sponging. She had to eat, and she had a drinking habit to feed. Again, how are you respecting her as a person any more than I am here, by adhering to the reality of her situation?

- Mary received some coins from Maria Harvey the afternoon of No 8th, when it is said both women stayed in the room all afternoon.

- Some clothes belonging to Maria's laundry clients were found in the room. Some clothing in the room has been referred to as being folded. Mary has a pump outside her windows, and a tin bath under her bed.

Speculation leading nowhere fast. You’d have to show that Mary would have turned down sixpence from Blotchy because she was earning enough to keep her in comfort from a hard day’s laundry. Have you found an earlier source for clothing in the room being ‘folded’ than the earliest one Sam managed to find, which I believe was McCormick, writing in the 1950s?

- The act of vomiting empties the stomach of its contents due to the involuntary contractions.

Not true, otherwise nobody vomiting copiously before going to bed after a heavy ‘session’ would ever sleep through the night, wake up the next morning still feeling like death and manage to vomit plenty more on rising, and at intervals through the day, without being able to face a morsel of food. It’s good that your life has been so sheltered, but 25 years married to my hubby would have taught you a few things I would have much preferred not to learn firsthand. (He behaves himself a lot more these days, I’m eternally grateful to report. Takes me a long time to tame the most stubborn buggers, but I get there eventually. ) I used to take the foolish “if I can’t beat you I’ll jolly well join you” path. But we are all different and the best way to settle my own tummy was to eat again as soon as possible after vomiting.

Either way, the act of vomiting does not necessarily empty the stomach - or leave it empty for long.

One word about Hutch: whether he invented Astrakhan Man or not, he evidently saw no problem at all with the concept of Mary taking strange men back to her room. He merely suggested that the man on this occasion was a cut above her normal 'catch', making him curious on that account - not shocked to the core that she was showing him round her bedroom within minutes of their first "How d'ya do?".

Unless you believe Hutch was never even there that night, and made the whole thing up from whole cloth, he admitted to waiting outside her room for some considerable time before giving up, and he presumably knew or suspected she was in there the whole time, but not on her own, otherwise what would have been the point?

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Who said anything about oral sex? But in any case you have lived a very sheltered life is all I can say. Can you think of a sweeter way for Blotchy (or any other male ‘guest’ for that matter) to stop a girl from singing about violets than by showing her a shilling and pointing Percy in the direction of her cake hole?

Boy you just took all the romance out of it for me, Caz.

c.d.