George Hutchinson Revisited

[rjpalmer]

What RJ said was that most prostitutes do not kiss their clients.
This is an example of what happens, a poster miss-quotes something, and then argues against it.
The problem is, they don't get it right in the first place.
(Sorry RJ, but that's what we have here)

Hutchinson said that Astrachan gave Kelly a kiss. Not that they kissed each other, or that Kelly kissed Astrachan.
Those are three different scenario's.

You're quibbling, Wick. Was it on the cheek? Did she turn her head away? Or did she stretch her neck up to meet him?

We don't know, because Hutchinson wasn't explicit.

A kiss was exchanged at the entrance to the court, and thus I stick to my guns.

I don't believe the scene Hutchinson is describing can be properly interpreted as a stereotypical meeting between an East End streetwalker and a client at 2.30 a.m. I think it shows familiarity.

The fact that she didn't immediately solicit him for six pence is a rather weak peg on which to hang your hat.

But different people interpret things differently. That's why we debate.

[caz]

Why would Mary Jane Kelly, who boasted her own room and a more than generous line of credit from her slum landlord, John McCarthy, allegedly experience a sudden 2.00 am urge to venture onto Commercial Street to borrow sixpence?

No effing idea, Simon. Some women, eh? More money than sense.

[Wickerman]

I don't recall Hutchinson saying Kelly kissed anyone...can someone refresh my memory please.

What RJ said was that most prostitutes do not kiss their clients.
This is an example of what happens, a poster miss-quotes something, and then argues against it.
The problem is, they don't get it right in the first place.
(Sorry RJ, but that's what we have here)

Hutchinson said that Astrachan gave Kelly a kiss. Not that they kissed each other, or that Kelly kissed Astrachan.
Those are three different scenario's.

[Joshua Rogan]

I don't recall Hutchinson saying Kelly kissed anyone...can someone refresh my memory please.

[caz]

I'm always wary that posters are not unintentionally creating a mystery where none exists.

A prostitutes normal working hours are overnight, they then spend all morning in bed. In fact this was also noted in the press. An account attributed to McCarthy said the early morning is the best time to catch 'them' in to get his rent, as they are mostly asleep after a nights work.

What is the mystery, the fact she is touting for money over night, or the precise time of 2:00?
She was seen after all at 10:00 pm the night before, also at 11:45 with Blotchy, at 2:00 then again at 3:00.
What is the mystery?

And of course, if the filthy rich are constantly trying to make more money than they could ever need, why is that some think a woman in Kelly's circumstances wouldn't get out of bed in the hope of borrowing sixpence?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Further, when they stop at the entrance to the court, they kiss.

This is an awkward scene. I am only going by what I've read and what I've heard, but my understanding is that most prostitutes do not kiss their clients. It's a line they do not cross, because they want it understood that this is sex for money and is not 'love' or a 'relationship.' There is to be no emotional attachment, and the punter needs to understand that.

Then again, if Mr. A is a 'special' client, and a well paying client, Kelly might bend the rules.

Of course, we have know way of knowing if this was one of Kelly's rules. Maybe the streetwalkers of the East End had no such qualms.

We do know that when Kelly first met and hooked up with Joe Barnett they began living together almost immediately, which was not uncommon for people in their circumstances. So if she was now on the lookout for a replacement Joe, who better than this Del Boy character, who liked a laugh and looked like he could show her a good time, relieve her immediate rent worries, and maybe even - if she dared to hope - become a regular provider?

The kiss does not seem out of place if she had high hopes for this one, but I'm in two minds over whether this was the first time she'd ever clapped eyes on him. Would he not have stood out and been remembered, if he'd been in her company previously? Hutch said he was curious because Del Boy was a cut above Kelly's usual pulling power.

[Abby Normal]

so if you beleive all the witnesses we have kelly seeing Barnett, blotchy (and doing more back in her room with him), Hutch, Aman (and doing more back in her room with him), then out again meeting wicks guy (who is he again? what are we calling him-Brittania man?) until what four? five? in the morning, then back up at (or still up)8:00am yacking from too much drink and then shortly out again to the pub with Maxwells man (and presumably back to her room for more) and murdered by him?!?

what is she some kind of machine? is any of this realistic?

no, of course its not-and the later you go in the sequence the more likely people are lying or mistaken.

[c.d.]

I agree that Astrachan was not likely to want to get into a spat [excuse the pun] with Hutch, if his only purpose was to get into bed with Kelly. If not the ripper, he had no idea she would be found dead the next morning, and no particular reason not to proceed with his purpose just because Hutch was showing an interest.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

If Hutchinson's story is true, I think he was attempting to intimidate her client into having a quickie as opposed to spending the night with her. Maybe make him think Hutch might come barging in at any time to make sure everything was okay with Kelly. A quickie would give Hutch more time to be invited in for the night by Kelly.

c.d.

[caz]

Could be Caz, it's just I very much doubt Astrachan was the Ripper.
Back on post 70 I listed all the known points that have an impact on this issue, and Kelly was seen out on the street after her meeting with him.
So, I favour that Astrachan was not interested in confronting Hutch, out of self preservation.

I agree that Astrachan was not likely to want to get into a spat [excuse the pun] with Hutch, if his only purpose was to get into bed with Kelly. If not the ripper, he had no idea she would be found dead the next morning, and no particular reason not to proceed with his purpose just because Hutch was showing an interest.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

What we need is evidence supporting Hutchinson's information he went to, and returned from Romford.That he saw Kelly on the street about 2AM.That he saw her about that time accompany a male person to her room.Interesting to note that posters who frequently call for evidence to support a claim,are now ,without any supporting evidence,taking Hutchinson's claims for granted. Of course we have Aberline's opinion of honesty.What we do not have is any attempt by Aberline,before he stated that opinion,to investigate the information given. So can it be that we accept the opinion as expert,to the point that investigation of Hutchinson was unneccessary?

Do you think it goes unnoticed that those who are against Hutchinson tend to insist on seeing evidence that doesn't exist?
We know the story of Violenia, and how he & his family walked from Manchester to London. What evidence do you reasonably suppose exists today to prove it happened?
Is Violenia a liar too? Is everyone a liar who we today cannot prove did what they claim they did over a century ago?
It takes days to walk from Manchester to London, Romford is merely a few hours away from London.
Why do you dwell on a question that doesn't matter?

Sarah Lewis has already confirmed a portion of Hutchinson's story, which only goes to show, it doesn't matter what turns up, certain people will still argue that it isn't enough.

When you say:
"Interesting to note that posters who frequently call for evidence to support a claim".
Not sure who you mean here, can you clarify?

Then you say:
"Of course we have Aberline's opinion of honesty.What we do not have is any attempt by Aberline,before he stated that opinion,to investigate the information given."
You do not know that.
Abberline could easily have had some of the details confirmed in the time he spent with Hutchinson.

[harry]

What we need is evidence supporting Hutchinson's information he went to, and returned from Romford.That he saw Kelly on the street about 2AM.That he saw her about that time accompany a male person to her room.Interesting to note that posters who frequently call for evidence to support a claim,are now ,without any supporting evidence,taking Hutchinson's claims for granted. Of course we have Aberline's opinion of honesty.What we do not have is any attempt by Aberline,before he stated that opinion,to investigate the information given. So can it be that we accept the opinion as expert,to the point that investigation of Hutchinson was unneccessary?

[Scott Nelson]

Hey! We desperately need Fisherman's and Ben Holm's input here.

[Wickerman]

.....
Anyway, on a lighter note, I remember back in High School when we used to meet a friend accidently in the street we would sometimes pretend to walk past and deliberately make our shoulders collide. We would then either pretend to fight or burst out laughing. If it was something along these lines, Hutchinson might have misinterpreted what he was seeing.

That much I do agree with, yes as long ago (for me) as it is I certainly remember those school days when we might pretend to not see a friend approach and accidentally/intentionally collide shoulders, sometimes harder than what would be expected.
Yes, those childhood games...

[Joshua Rogan]

It amazes me that people think she wouldn't need to pay for food and drink

[Wickerman]

I'm always wary that posters are not unintentionally creating a mystery where none exists.

A prostitutes normal working hours are overnight, they then spend all morning in bed. In fact this was also noted in the press. An account attributed to McCarthy said the early morning is the best time to catch 'them' in to get his rent, as they are mostly asleep after a nights work.

What is the mystery, the fact she is touting for money over night, or the precise time of 2:00?
She was seen after all at 10:00 pm the night before, also at 11:45 with Blotchy, at 2:00 then again at 3:00.
What is the mystery?