Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

[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?

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.

[Dan Norder]

I wont bother mentioning any more evidence for my statements again Dan

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.

[Chava]

Natalie, all the drugs and booze and depravity found in the East End were also found in the West End! There would be no need whatsoever to go down to Dorset St to find them. And if they had an inclination for louche life they didn't need to go further than the area around Soho. I'm not saying 'toffs' didn't go to Whitechapel ever, but I think if they did they would have stuck out like extremely sore thumbs. Yes, there were well-dressed people in Petticoat Lane. Not everyone in the East End was on their uppers. There were a lot of fairly middle-class people living in the area and a number of Jews who had reasonable businesses living there. My in-laws lived there from when they arrived in the UK in 1908 until they went further north to Stoke Newington in 1931. They weren't wealthy, but they weren't on their uppers either. They rented a place in Mulberry St and lived above the shop.

But there is a world of difference between a Jewish print-maker and his family and a West End Toff. I can't see why the latter would go down to Whitechapel unless it was on some kind of charitable mission. And that's where you'd maybe find Jack The Toff, in Toynbee Hall. A man from there would have been known in the area and trusted, so that is possible.

[Ben]

Spot on, Chava. Good points.

Hi Norma,

What about when they were high on their drug or drink of choice?

What about before they became chemically inconvenienced? What about before they decided (apparently!) to go out drinking near Flower and Dean Street for example? Did they think that Astrakhan cuffs and thick gold chains were the ticket, or might they just have taken into account the nature of the district, dressed down, and then got sloshed or high? 'Cause the latter makes infinitely better sense to me.

If you think it was only "toffs" going to the theatre in Commerical Street....

Moreover a casual glance at some of the photographs taken in broad daylight from that period, depicting Petticoat market, reveal a fair scattering of the well dressed in amongst the less fortunate

Nah, not really.

Not in any of the photographs I've looked at from the period.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

- Mary Kelly had the remains of her last meal in her stomach when examined

- Carrie Maxwell spoke to a woman who had thrown up twice before 9 am

Just to clarify:

Bond states that there was a partly-digested meal of fish and potatoes scattered in the abdominal cavity and in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines. He doesn't refer to "the remains of her last meal", as one might imagine would have been the case if she'd vomited it up earlier. On the contrary - there was evidently enough food to have spilled out into the abdominal cavity, whilst still maintaining a presence in Kelly's stomach after it had been cut. That sounds like a reasonable amount of food was inside Kelly when she was killed.

Maxwell mentions only one act of vomiting (which may or may not completely empty the stomach), by the way.

[Natalie Severn]

I'm with Ben. I bet they didn't. Unless they were absolutely dumb. That was one of the most dangerous areas of a dangerous town. The police called Dorset St 'The Do-As-You-Please' and they wouldn't go down there alone. Slumming is one thing--and didn't come into fashion for 30+ years--suicide is another!

What about when they were high on their drug or drink of choice? Did they race home to change into their slumming gear before heading for their next buzz?I dont think so. A drunken toff behaves in exactly the same manner as a drunken prole--- read the statistics on drunken and dangerous driving for some examples of where matters of personal as well as public safety get thrown to the wind.
Moreover a casual glance at some of the photographs taken in broad daylight from that period, depicting Petticoat market, reveal a fair scattering of the well dressed in amongst the less fortunate.
Norma
ps -who said he was "slumming"?He may have been to the Theatre in Commercial Street where Dan Lemo was starring that night,had had a few drinks afterwards and was out looking for a prostitute before going home.

[Chava]

I'm with Ben. I bet they didn't. Unless they were absolutely dumb. That was one of the most dangerous areas of a dangerous town. The police called Dorset St 'The Do-As-You-Please' and they wouldn't go down there alone. Slumming is one thing--and didn't come into fashion for 30+ years--suicide is another!

I wont bother mentioning any more evidence for my statements again Dan,...by request, since not one rebuttal from anyone has shown any of them to be inaccurate. Starting with your assertion that Blotchy Man was a known "client". And making Hutch seem credible once again after 120 years of not being so.

All that anyone has provided as refutation is their personal opinion, and their incredulity at reading the bare facts.

You are of course free to assume Blotchy was a client not an escort home, and you can assume that Mary did bring clients to her room after Joe moved out, you can also assume that Mary went out after being seen entering at 11:45 on the 8th. You may assume Mary was due for eviction. You may assume that Marys work ethic had her working in the rain drunk when she didnt need doss or drink that night.

Heck you can even assume that a young woman would have no need for a space all her own, or that she might treasure that privilege, being broke all the time. She did seem to have sympathy for women like her that didnt, like Maria Harvey until shortly before Marys death.

My only point has been that not one of those assumptions can be proven by anyone or has any known data to base it on, but using only the given testimony at Inquest, ignoring the woman who saw a dead woman throwing up, you can make a reasonable assumption that does seem to have corroboration in certain areas.

Guess away, thats all Im doing, but at least my guesses seem to have some shred of evidence to support them. I think thats akin to shooting at a target with an eye patch over one eye.

What many have suggested is akin to shooting at a target blindfolded, while facing away from it.

Best regards.

[Ben]

You continue to rant on hysterically and in the face of many records to the contrary ,that toffs never went to Whitechapel.They did

Well, here I'd challenge you to cite one single occasion where I stated that toffs "never" went to Whitechapel, let alone ranted hysterically about it. As for the "toffs" that did find themselves in that pocket in the East End for whatever reason, and who were dwarfed numbers-wise by the local blue-collar contingent, yes, they probably did own "nice" overcoats and watches, but did they parade their finery in the most conspicious manner imaginable in what was well-known to be a notorious hotspot fot crime, poverty and homelessness, and when public feeling was agitated anyway by the knowledge that a serial killer was active in that immediate locality?

Probably not.

It's a bit boring for me, because to tell you the truth, I'm secretly desperate for people dressed like Dr. Gull from "From Hell" to have have been sauntering the district in that area in the small hours, but I've had to put that desire to one side, grit my teeth, and concede that they probably didn't.

I'm gutted.

Did they flash their gold when they were pissed or high on opium on a Saturday night in Whitechapel eager to buy sex from a prostitute-----you bet they did!

No, actually, I don't bet they did. I bet they didn't.

[Chava]

Michael, Cox states that she saw Kelly go to her room with Blotchy Face, and I think if that was a rare occurrence she would have said so. It doesn't sound as if Cox was surprised at all that Kelly should have a male visitor, so I think it's probable that Kelly did take men back to her room. The main question is: who did she bring back? Everyone? Just regulars? Occasional regulars? Highly privileged clients?

The best, Michael,
Chava

[Dan Norder]

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

It's an inescapable prerequisite for being a prostitute, though, and it's indisputable that Mary Kelly was one.

There are no statements, comments, suggestions or remarks by any of the Mary Jane Kelly witness club documented anywhere that she had at any time been known to bring clients to her room

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

Mary Jane Kelly was killed indoors and was at least 14 years younger by statements on her age, than the youngest prior Canon victim.

And that has a much to do with determining who killed her as her being the only one with "Jane" for a middle name does: nothing.

But, worst of all, all of these things and more have been repeatedly pointed out to you, yet you continue to repeat the exact same nonsense over and over. You've gone beyond merely being ignorant to purposefully misrepresenting facts to try to slant things so that you can rationalize up some nonexistent support for your false claims.

[celee]

Hi Michael,

If Barnett did not like Mary being a "career girl", then it is not surprising that she would have been hesitant to bring back clients to her room. Throw in the fact that he was supplying her with money as a further disincentive to do so. But now Barnett is out of the picture as is the money that he gave her. Is it now such a leap that Mary may well have resorted to bringing back clients to her room?

c.d.

Hi,

No, it is not to much of a leap to believe she brought clients back to her room.

Your friend, Brad

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

If Barnett did not like Mary being a "career girl", then it is not surprising that she would have been hesitant to bring back clients to her room. Throw in the fact that he was supplying her with money as a further disincentive to do so. But now Barnett is out of the picture as is the money that he gave her. Is it now such a leap that Mary may well have resorted to bringing back clients to her room?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

- There are no statements, comments, suggestions or remarks by any of the Mary Jane Kelly witness club documented anywhere that she had at any time been known to bring clients to her room

There is not one statement that said she did not bring clients to her room, either.