Prater/Lewis/Hutchinson/Cox

Rather than address each poke, Ill summarize....

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

- 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

- 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.

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

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

- Mary Kelly was the only Canon victim that had a room she could stay in without providing money for that night.

- There are no accounts, stories, suggestions or intimations by any witness that Mary was to be evicted for her arrears, including her landlords.

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

- There are no reports that any rent arrears had been paid since Joe Barnett left, despite her having some income from potentially 2 sources.

- 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.

- 1 Inquest witness testified to seeing Mary Kelly out of her room after approx 11:45pm on Nov 8th, and had her statement preceded by a warning for its content.

- No witnesses saw light or heard noise from Mary Janes Room after 1:15-1:30am.

-2 witnesses testified they heard a cry from the direction of the court, neither stated they thought it was Mary Jane.

- At least one Senior Medical authority did not believe that Catherine Eddowes was killed by the man being referred to as Jack the Ripper by the press and police.

- Mary Jane Kelly was killed indoors and was at least 14 years younger by statements on her age, than the youngest prior Canon victim. All 4 prior victims had ages ranging within a 6 year span, and were killed outdoors.

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

- 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

Best regards all.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
I am not interested in talking a lot of nonsense with you about whether or not Mr Astrakhan was the ripper/was not the ripper /was the man Hutch said he saw but didnt. I am interested in is thinking about whether Mr Astrakhan could have been a client of Mary"s who Hutch saw-thats all.I believe he could have been.He didnt need to be the Ripper too.You continue to rant on hysterically and in the face of many records to the contrary ,that toffs never went to Whitechapel.They did.Some forty or more of them lived at 28 Commercial Street alone .They were from Oxford University as part of a settlement programme----upper middle class young men,each owning a decent overcoat,watch,gold chain etc.Thats how the upper class dressed themselves-for crying out loud.You bring a kind of petty bourgeios provincialism into your thinking about these men as well as a 21st century ignorance and prejudice about The City, the East End, theatre land, East End libertarianism circa 1888etc and its so pigheaded to be so bigotted.
Five young men in 1887,were renting an old beer shop in Leman Street ---all of them from Oxford and Cambridge- if you think the landed gentry took pains to avoid being "talked about" like a provincial spinster lady twitching her net curtains,then its you who lives in cloud cuckoo land.Read up and read between the lines .They didnt give a toss----seriously.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!

[Cap'n Jack]

To make alcoholic ginger beer you need a small pot or kettle, an open fire to boil it on, and a larger container to hold water at room temperature...

[Cap'n Jack]

Caz
I've said for years now that old blotchy was delivering the ginger beer plant to enable Mary to brew her own ginger beer on the cheap.
Cheapest booze available.
You put it in ginger beer bottles don't you know.
Ginger?
Cos she was or cos she drunk the muck?

[Sam Flynn]

I've read the Bible a few times; some parts more than a few. I don't remember one incident of Jesus urinating. My guess is that he did, however. Using PM's logic, I have to rule it out as there is no record of it. I just wonder how he held it in for 33 years!

It was Holy Water.

[The Good Michael]

I've read the Bible a few times; some parts more than a few. I don't remember one incident of Jesus urinating. My guess is that he did, however. Using PM's logic, I have to rule it out as there is no record of it. I just wonder how he held it in for 33 years!

Mike

[caz]

...what was in fact known...being that she had never brought "clients" in before Blotchy Man…

Hi Perry,

How exactly was this known? Where is your evidence that there was a 24-hour security guard on the door, making sure no funny business ever went on inside?

…Plus she was drunk....so whats the reason now for going out or inviting men in.....she has a room, she has eaten, and she is hammered.

I know she was drunk. That’s probably why she invited Blotchy in, not caring that he might assume she was well up for it.

I never claimed she went out again after Blotchy, although she could have done - if she was still in one piece when he left. Nobody saw him leave, so the pair could have left arm-in-arm for all you know. Nobody saw an awful lot of things which nevertheless happened.

Her freedom to use the room as desired doesnt equate to her starting to bring strange men into it to service them…

I never claimed otherwise. I said it was a distinct possibility, considering she had to earn her food and drink money somehow after Joe left, even if she had no intention of paying any rent.

....Im sure he still had ample opportunities outdoors, in dark locations, with unfortunates…

But we do know the ripper didn’t take any such opportunities in November, don’t we? So he either murdered and mutilated Mary or he was not murdering and mutilating anyone. Either way it was a departure from murdering and mutilating outdoors.

...but yet you now surmise that 5 weeks after the last murder, he is forced indoors due to the "heat".

Where have I surmised this? It remains one possibility, yes, despite your insistence to the contrary. It’s equally possible that Mary felt safer indoors because the murders had been taking place outdoors. But she was wrong to feel safe indoors, regardless of who killed her, wasn't she? In fact, she would have needed a permanent escort while outdoors at night as well, in order to be safe during the latter half of 1888.

So whichever way you look at it, Mary was vulnerable to whoever was knifing women in the area that year. Your insistence that she would not have left herself vulnerable to the same man (or men) who killed the previous victims makes no sense, because she did so every time she went out at night. Or are you now going to claim that the record shows she only ever left the room when she was accompanied by someone she considered trustworthy?

I think it’s more likely that chance dictated that one in five of the most vulnerable unfortunates in that area would be younger and have some sort of roof over her head, and that the ripper need not have been looking for an inside job at all. If the opportunity offered itself to him on a plate, would he have turned it down?

How about this, disagree all you want with what I write, just please offer some shred of proof, or evidence, that you are attempting to actually counter the position, not just trash the messenger.

I’m not ‘trashing’ the messenger; I’m just asking him to consider alternatives to the message that claims Mary never put herself in a situation which could have left her alone with the ripper.

And in this case.....sure, speculate all you want, but at least acknowledege that there is not one piece of evidence that suggests Mary Jane ever brought clients into room 13.

Gee thanks. Then I will continue to indulge in wild speculation that Mary would have been vulnerable to any man who took his knife to a woman in 1888, while acknowledging that you are right: there is no proof that Blotchy wasn’t a trusted friend.

Mary evidently felt no more vulnerable with Blotchy indoors, than she felt with other men she encountered outdoors. I’m just not sure that tells us much.

Theres only your and Dans intimate understanding of what all Victorian whores did all the time..regardless of their circumstances.

You do know these were actual people dont you...not just stats?

Now that was both uncalled for and below the belt.

What you are suggesting is that whenever Mary needed money in 1888 for food or drink, she didn’t go out (or stay in) and sell her body to anyone. Oh no, she simply sponged off the various men in her sad little life, while giving them nothing in return. That presumably gives you your motive for one of her used and abused male associates to turn on her and butcher her (taking full advantage of the fact that she 'just happened' to be in the right place and time and circumstances to appear like another victim of another mutilating murderer). And that's your idea of being fair to Mary as an actual person? I won't ask you to give me a break, since you clearly aren't giving her one.

If you want to claim that Mary earned enough to pay for all her own food and drink, without resorting either to prostitution or sponging off boyfriends, then produce the evidence or acknowledge that it’s mere speculation connected with your efforts to clear Jack of her murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

What "evidence" tells as much? Where is there any evidence whatsoever that he saw the Ripper ,full face,standing at Church passage?

Oh dear.

You're doing it again.

You're confounding circumstantial evidence with proof. I'm afraid it'll take an alarming amount of convincing, now, that you know the difference between the two. The fact that Lawende stated that he saw a woman with the same clothing (not "similar") as Eddowes talking to a man at the entrance to Mitre Square when the latter's body would be found ten minutes later in Mitre Square constitiutes evidence that the couple in question were Eddowes and her killer. Not proof, just evidence.

If you're talking about a specific individual being convicted on that evidence, then no, it probably wouldn't stand up in a court of law, but that's a seperate issue entirely.

There is a difference Ben,in my view,between Lawende"s man standing there with a woman ,being seen "full face"-ie facing these three men-not attempting to turn away, and Hutchinson"s man "attempting to lower his face"

Norma, you're in cloud cuckoo land here.

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading.

You really want to argue that Lawende's suspect exposed himself to great risk by talking to a woman in a dark passage across the road from the club (i.e. on the opposite side of the street from the witnesses) without seeking to draw attention to himself in any way, but that Mr. Astrakhan took less risk by dressing in the most conspicuous manner imaginable for the area (complete with a "mug me" gold watch), walking straight passed Hutchinson under a gas lamp and turning to look at him in the face from a few inches away, thence to saunter into a victim's home with that same witness tailing him from behind?!?

Absolutely unbelievable.

he could have just been a client of Mary Kelly"s.

...Or he could have been a figment of Hutchinson's imagination desgined to deflect attention away from himself and explain away his interest in a crime scene.

Ben

[caz]

...Even so I question Mr Astrakhan being the Ripper-----he could have just been a client of Mary Kelly"s.Mary had many male clients some of whom would have been there before and known the trick to get in with the latch.One of these could have "let himself in" when she was sleeping...

Hi Nats,

I was fully expecting Perry Mason to come and tell you that the record clearly demonstrates that Mary never willingly brought any men back to her room, or let any in, unless they were considerably more to her than strangers or mere casual acquaintances.

I daren't tell him that the absence of proof that Blotchy was someone she had only met that night does not mean that he must have been a bosom buddy whom she had every reason to trust. He will only accuse me of calling him names again and ganging up on him with Dan and Tom.

Mary was drunk and Blotchy was a man, invited back to her bedroom. If he was not gay or a close relative, he had every reason to think he could make advances of one sort or another and not get his face slapped, whether he knew her or not. That applies even if Perry is right and she wasn't up for a bit of hanky panky on this occasion in exchange for more than a kind word.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

What "evidence" tells as much? Where is there any evidence whatsoever that he saw the Ripper ,full face,standing at Church passage? The problem is we have no evidence on which we can rely.Lawende wasnt sure he would recognise the man again and never saw the woman"s face.That is not evidence that would stand up in court.
Regarding Mr Astrakhan .There is a difference Ben,in my view,between Lawende"s man standing there with a woman ,being seen "full face"-ie facing these three men-not attempting to turn away, and Hutchinson"s man "attempting to lower his face" as if to avoid Hutchinson"s stare.The latter is what I would expect from a man with ill intent----the former seems brazen in the extreme-certainly not attempting to hide his face in any way.Thats what doesnt add up.Even so I question Mr Astrakhan being the Ripper-----he could have just been a client of Mary Kelly"s.Mary had many male clients some of whom would have been there before and known the trick to get in with the latch.One of these could have "let himself in" when she was sleeping.But I have other thoughts about who this Mr Astrakhan may have been.
As for Cadosche.He heard someone ,he said, at quite a different time from Elizabeth Long----some 15 minutes out.A confusing set of times we have here.
You are wrong about Aldgate being a big dark place.It was one of the few places that were lit by electric lighting because of the butchers and slaughterers and Jake reckoned that that included Leadenhall Street.But not Mitre Street.Then as now its a small medieval type lane which would have provided concealment.
Norma

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

I suspect the Lawende sighting mainly because I dont think the Ripper would have stood there allowing himself to be seen "full face".

And yet you've stated numerous times that Mr. Astrakhan could be the killer because you think he might look a bit like Klosowski or dress a bit like Druitt despite Hutchinson alleging a far more "full face" sighting than Lawende or any other witness offered. You've even done the same with the People's Journal account.

Odd that.

The man Lawende saw was probably the killer. The evidence tells us as much. If he was seen, it was inevitable. It happened for reasons entirely beyond his control and had nothing to do with his "ability to escape detection". Again, I refer to Cadosche's evidence. Can we really chalk up Cadosche's failure to investigate the muffled thud against the fence to any great "detection-escaping" abilities on the part of the killer. No, of course we don't. We chalk it up to clumsiness offset by pure luck.

No, Eddowes probably wouldn't have been seen soliciting in the Aldgate area. It was big dark place. What if she encountered her killer nearer Bishopsgate? There's nothing remotely significant about nobody seeing Eddowes anywhere. They probably did, but with prostitution (and people!) being rife in the district, they either didn't notice or didn't remember. Same with a random bloke in a peaked cap sauntering the small hours. No surprises there. The end of Church Passage afforded Eddowes just as good a view of the "lay of the land" than the Aldgate/Mitre Sreet junction. Just as many possibilities for beat-monitering there as the former location.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
I suspect the Lawende sighting mainly because I dont think the Ripper would have stood there allowing himself to be seen "full face".It doesnt tally with his ability to escape detection.
The other important factor is Kate.For her not to have been seen before this,by Harvey for example ,seems rather odd.She couldnt have been "soliciting" at Church Passage between 1.10 am and 1.35 am when she would have been likely to have arrived at Church Passage from Bishopsgate Police Station,because she most certainly would have been seen by PC Harvey.
Similarly,if she went first to solicit outside Aldgate Station or St Botolph"s, then someone -one of the two plain clothes police in the area or Harvey or his beat policeman friend patrolling the other side of Aldgate ,would have seen her around that area soliciting and then crossing the road witth a man surely?
However,had she made a bee line from Bishopsgate Police station for that corner where Aldgate meets Mitre Street,ie outside 29 The High Street, Aldgate,-yes thats right and its possibly where she had been arrested earlier, she could have been watching the lay of the land -as she may have done many times before, and been able to see the movements of PC Watkins while soliciting the previous half hour,and its just a few yards from where she was murdered---with an entrance to Mitre Square right next to the corner spot of the crime scene.Soliciting there would also have allowed her to hide herself in Mitre Street...............as well as being the corner most prostitutes would have taken their clients on account of its darkness.
No I am not thinking solely of The Ripper but also what Kate is likely to have been doing that half hour when nobody recalled seeing her anywhere.
Best
Norma

[Chava]

Hi Ben, yes you're right!

Lewis's description is of a short stout man. Do we have any idea at all what Kudzu looked like? Apart from the shining light of a concerned citizen beaming from his honest and open countenance?

[Tom_Wescott]

The Perry Mason Project

Im not prepared to say Lawende saw "Jack", because Im not prepared to say "Jack" killed Kate with authority.

Did I understand this correctly? Are you now suggesting that Kate Eddowes wasn't a Ripper victim? You've already thrown out the bathwater when you unceremoniously excluded Kelly and Stride, so are you really willing to send the proverbial baby flying out the window by knocking Kate off the list? By the time you're done with this project, Jack the Ripper will emerge a saint with the cleanest hands of the LVP!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott