|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3279
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 12:51 pm: | 
|
And repose is tabooed by anxiety!!!! Great line!!! but we seem to have drifted from the Thread!!!!! LOL
Suz xxxxxxx |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2609
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Suzi,
That must have been THE lucky escape that!Gives fresh meaning to the expression "thank your lucky star"!
Yes-it is a bit off thread now but ,today,for the first time, I saw his name honoured among those who lost their lives under the heading,"Let us not forget"---
James Dobbin,Shipwright.
There were apparently several other poor souls who lost their lives in this earlier tragedy,
Nats
x |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 216
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 3:55 am: |
|
Of course the thread is a little off line,but to understand Hutchinson and 1888 society in general,we can still be influenced by the words and experiences of the older generation.Pity there are not more posting here,but as Natalie recounts,her mothers words are enlightening,in so much as we can still draw comparisons through our own lives and actions.
People fabricate stories now as they did then,so it is not difficult to understand that Hutchinson might lie.In judging his story,and the effect it had on police thinking,consider if the same set of circumstances happened today,would a seasoned investigator jump to the conclusion that Aberline did,and as quickly.
Either Kelly was on the street at 2am,or safely in her room.The answer has a crucial bearing on her murder,as it tends to show how the killer gained entrance.If however Hutchinson is lying,a strong possibility is that Kelly never left that room,and the killer entered uninvited.As there was no indication of a forced entry,then opening the door by reaching through the window,is a strong possibility.It narrows the suspects considerably.It brings into focus the midnight visitor,what part he played,and who he might be?
My opinion of that person has been posted previously,so I will not repeat.
If HUtchinson was telling the truth,there can be no chance of naming the Ripper,the list of canditates is too large. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
There are two main players in the Kelly case.
G Hutchinson,
C Maxwell
Both of these characters gave long and intresting statements to the police and it is essencial that there evidence is analyzed for there authenticity .
Both of these people were prepeared to risk there welfare getting involved.
Maxwell was prepeared to repeat her story over and over again to Abberline himself, and to swear under oath at the inquest even after being cautioned.
Her activities on the morning of the 9th were carefully checked and found to be true, she gave a account of the conversation, the vomit, her clothing, and a opinion of her wellbeing. ie.' Her eyes looked queer like she was suffering with a heavy cold'
She was described as a level headed woman and respectable.
George Hutchinson reported his sightings on evening of the 12th , after much deliberation he was prepeared to place himself opposite Millers court at a time medical reports indicated her death, he was prepeared to describe a man dressed in fancy attire and stick to that account throughout, his description of the events and the words uttered by kelly have all the hallmarks of truth.
For Eg who would invent such wording as she said' Oh I have lost my hankerchief'
As i have said countless times before that implies that at that moment she required the use of a hanky.
Some six hours later Maxwell describes her looking like she had a heavy cold.
That implies that these two people independant of each other gave statements which include a point that indicates that both people were telling the truth, a observation which along with there willingness to involve themselves to the degree they did points to their honesty.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
G'day Richard,
Why do you always make 'mountains' out of 'mole-hills'? Prostitutes used handkerchiefs for other things! (use your imagination  )
Hutchinson claimed that Mary told the man that she had lost her handkerchief, that's all. She did not say: "Oh I have a dreadful cold and I have nothing to blow my nose on!"
No one believes Maxwell was lying!!! She did everything she said she did and seems to have genuinely believed that she saw and spoke to the deceased. But she was mistaken!
The woman she saw vomited in the street because she had been drinking! I have never met anyone who vomited with a cold! Have you?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 19, 2005) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1905
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
G'day,
In Caroline Maxwells statement to the police on the 9th of November she said she had known Mary Kelly for 4 months, although she had not seen her for 3 weeks. That means she had known her for three months and one week, BEFORE not seeing her for 3 weeks.
She also said: "...since Joe Barnett left her she has obtained her living as an unfortunate." Barnett walked out on Mary Kelly 10 days before her murder so if Maxwell hadn't seen Mary for 3 weeks before her death, she seems to have been one of those people who thrive on gossip and love to start it!
LEANNE |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Better late than never...Happy Birthday Mr. Mann !
By the way..ahem...where were you on the night of November 8th,1888 ? Can you verify your whereabouts?
Pushing 52 |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3282
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Er... Happy belated Birthday Harry!  ( hehe loved Howards last comment!!!!!!)
Leanne-
I just so want to believe Caroline Maxwell..
a) because her story sounds viable
up to a point
and..
b)maybe because it has a 'mystery' attatched to it that cannot be proven...ever!
I agree she had probably known Mary, maybe by name for a month or so,I wonder where they met??,
....Probably in the street as common residents in the small crowded passage that was Dorset Street!..They would have known or bumped into each other- surely!
I can't help but that think that Mary would have known Mrs Maxwell in one way or another!....As the wife of a 'lodging house deputy' in Dorset Street she would have been a 'handy' person to know,or be 'in with' ,wouldn't she!
The conversation with 'the horrors' sounds like one that suggests a 'friendship ' or 'familiarity' of some sort too...I'm not sure where the 'Carrie' phrase came from but that again is a tad interesting isn't it!
I KNOW that the Mrs Maxwell thing is going to confound until the end of time here BUT............
Maybe Leanne ,she did just enjoy the idea of causing a 'kerfuffle' and spoke to the press!!!!
We'll never know sadly but the plates and milk details will always continue to fascinate me!!!!
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1906
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
G'day Suzi,
Why does the 'plates' issue fascinate you?
Caroline Maxwell was a lodging house deputy's wife and she collected the plates that her husband and her had to wash!
And what is it about the milk that you don't understand?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1578
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Mountains out of molehills?
I quite understand alternative reasons for hankerchief use, although in this case it does not seem apt.
If Mary had a cold she would have fiddled about her person for some kind of rag if she felt the inclination to blow her nose. of course she would not have said to a prospective client 'Blimey guv I really want to blow my nose because i have a stinking cold'
Although I am not stating that the cold induced the vomiting, i can state from personal experience that a person not in good health can definate vomit from a virus.
I must state again Leanne, that i am not making Mountains out of Molehills, just relaying sensible observations.[ at least i think...]
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1907
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
G'day Richard,
Would a prostitute want to advertise the fact that she had a viris to a prospective client?
And if she wanted to blow her nose why couldn't she wait until she was inside, where there was bound to be something she could use if she could only afford one handkerchief?
Sorry Rich, but I dont think it's a sensible observation!
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 217
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 3:39 am: |
|
Howard,
Now where was I?.Memory's a bit dim on that,but I remember having a pot of beer in my hand.
Richard,
In my opinion Hutchinson and Maxwell have this in common.Both statements were not confirmed as to their truthfulness.You cannot authenticate them.
While Hutchinson is not in conflict with the medical evidence,Maxwell is.
While Hutchinson allows for a time of killing as anytime after 2am,Maxwell limits it to after 9am.
'Oh I have lost my handkerchef' is a remark made by Hutchinson in a statement,not a confirmed utterance of Kelly.
Hutchinson's statement can be considered an alibi,Maxwell's cannot.
Swearing under oath does not always equate with truthfulness.
Hutchinson's speaking of the handkerchef was made after Maxwell's testimony,so it cannot be considered as independent,unless it can be proved Hutchinson was unaware of her testimony.
While Maxwell's words have a ring of honesty as far as seeing someone,but mistaking who that person was,Hutchinson's whole account borders on an improbable and unbelievable series of events. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3283
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Leanne-
Plates generally don't fascinate me and neither does milk as far as I recall, but it's the little details such as 'Oh yes that was the day I took the plates back' and I'm sure that milk collection wasn't a daily occurence as it was in higher ranks of London town!!!!!
Suzi |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 40
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
"If Hutch did indeed walk away, without even trying to look through Mary's window, it might suggest that he waited in vain for a previous customer to emerge, in the hope of sharing her room and getting warm and dry, or sharing her earnings."
If that was the case, why didn't he say so in his witness statement? The scenario is, as you suggest, entirely innocent, so why not 'fess up to it? No; Hutchinson's stout, loitering presence at 2:30am, coupled with his ludicrously elaborate description point to the very antithesis of an "innocent" explanation.
Hi Richard,
"Oh I have lost my hankerchief'. As i have said countless times before that implies that at that moment she required the use of a hanky."
Not necessarily. It could equally be surmised that Hutchinson was acutely aware, from Lawende's sighting at Mitre Square, that the police were scouting for a man with a red hankerchief secreted about his person. Already, we have ample evidence to the effect that Hutchinson's Astrkahn suspect was little more than a thinly veiled amalgamation of previous witness descriptions, and the red hanky is merely one example of this. Hutchinson may simply have "borrowed" the red hanky detail from Lawende and sought the auspicious moment - his "witness" statement - to deflect suspicion away from himself and in the direction of previous ripper descriptions.
Belated birthday wishes, Harry! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
Ii gather from the above post that you believe our 'George' had motives for his hanging around such as Mayby crashing out in the comfort of kellys room after Astracan left, even though he told Kelly he had no money to give her.
I would have imagined that a person on the game at that hour of the morning trying it on with GH, who could only reject her advances because of his finacial situation, would hardly believe that because of old times sake she would offer him bed and breakfast.
The majority of people on the casebook consider George as a liar, a fraud , a pimp,simply because of his vivid description.
I do not.
But of course opinion reigns on this wonderful site.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3286
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
NOW there is a real problem here with this and the 'Bernett' thread!!!!!!
All together now 'eh
Not going to type all the Mrs M stuff again.....lets pick up here eh?
Suzi |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 42
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Hey Richard,
Quote: "I gather from the above post that you believe our 'George' had motives for his hanging around such as Mayby crashing out in the comfort of kellys room after Astracan left"
No! Apologies for the confusion, Richard. I don't believe GH had any such motive. It was Caz who proposed this scenario intially (unless I read her incorrectly). I was merely offering suggestions to the contrary. |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 70
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 7:45 pm: |
|
Given Mary's supposed fear of the Ripper, and with Barnett now being gone, she might have welcomed a male companion to spend the night. However, business obviously came first. But, as I stated previously, she might not have known her clients intentions, i.e, a quick one or all night. To me, anyway, this is a plausible explanation for GH waiting outside to see which it was going to be.
c.d. |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 44
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 10:16 am: |
|
Hi CD,
"Given Mary's supposed fear of the Ripper, and with Barnett now being gone, she might have welcomed a male companion to spend the night."
This strikes me as a most illogical move, in light of her ripper-related fears. The presence of a mysterious male stranger is hardly the best antitode for quelling such fears. Indeed, I imagine she would have avoided strangers like the very plague.
All the best,
Ben |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 73
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
Ben,
True, but that assumes that GH was a stranger to her. If we believe him (yes, that is also an assumption), then he and Mary were friends or at least acquaintences.
c.d. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
G'day,
...or he was a 'watcher'!
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3293
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Leanne
Am damned sure that GH and Mary were more than acquaintances!!!! Theres a lot to be looked at here !..
a) She asked him (allegedly) for 6d ....suggests a familiarity...
b)He followed her back with the 'man'... suggests a concern..
c)He felt the need to make a statement.....why that was (maybe re Sarah Lewis) we will never know
d) He had something (!) over Mary....either money related,or he KNEW something (more than we do!!)... or maybe in a 'stalking' manner.
Ben-
IF.....IF Hutch was a 'friend' of some sort she wouldnt have been averse to him coming into her room surely....(especially if he'd had a 6d in his hand!!) AND Barnett gone or not ..who cares, she was obviously making sure she had someone else in her room! aka Maria Harvey or whoever.....NOT TO BE ALONE was important to her....the mistake she made was not having anyone there when 'chummy' came visiting!
Suzi |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 46
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Hi CD,
With my apologies, I assumed your reference to a companion "to stay the night" referred to the Astrakahn suspect, rather than Hutchinson himself.
Hutchinson may indeed have been an acquaintance of Mary Kelly, but I consider it extremely unlikely that she would invite a fastidiously dressed stanger (Astrakhan) to spend the night with her, especially in light of her ripper fears.
Ben |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 11:33 pm: |
|
G'day,
SUZI: 'He followed her back with the 'man'... suggests a concern..' A concern for what?
Hutchinson told 'The Times' November 14: 'My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed, but I had no suspicion that he was the murderer.' If he was showing concern but not for her safety.....what? Concern that he may miss his chance to acquire some money?
BEN: 'but I consider it extremely unlikely that she would invite a fastidiously dressed stanger (Astrakhan) to spend the night with her, especially in light of her ripper fears.' This is why I believe that Hutchinson's well-dressed man was really someone that Mary thought she knew and could trust!
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3297
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 3:29 am: |
|
Leanne-
A 'concern' for Mary in some way...as a friend, an ex, a 'spreeish' friend or ex, noseiness,hope for 'company'...Maybe...
Suzi |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 220
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 4:25 am: |
|
"I had no suspicion that he was the murderer".So Hutchinsons words belie any suggestion that he was concerned for Kelly's safety.
The words however do tend to reveal a desire to have the person thought a murderer,and turn suspicion on him,and away from Hutchinson himself.
The defence,"My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed",might appear a valid reason to take an interest in such a person,but to follow and wait 45 minutes in one spot,beggars belief.Follow and wait,for what reason?
I see Hutchinson's statement a means to put Kelly on the streets and in company of a person who was never going to be found,because he did not exist,and only the killer had need to do this.
A suspicion that Kelly never left her room after midnight,would surely point police suspicion to the small circle of people who was aware of her situation that night. |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 47
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Given the extent to which Hutchinson shot himself in the foot in offering his decidedly dodgy witness statement, it is extremely baffling that Abberline should come to place such credence in his witness account.
His purported concern over the stranger's attire and general incongruity with the East End surroundings is utterly contradicated by his later musings: "I believe he lives in the Neighbourhood".
Quite simply, this does not compute.
Hutchinson's observation that Mary Kelly was " a bit spreeish" is in direct conflict with the tesimony of Mary Ann Cox in which the latter makes reference to MJK'S completely intoxicated condition.
If Hutchinson's mystery man was the ripper, the latter can only have bided his time for an hour and a quarter before "striking". Does this seem likely?
We are then expected to believe that both bushy eyelashes and "American cloth" are easily discernable under a Victorian gaslamp in November.
Would a prostitute in blind terror of Jack the Rippr REALLY venture out on her own into the heart of "ripperland"? Well, According to Cox, she was physically incapable of doing so.
Compounding all of the above discrepencies is issue of the policeman who, went confronted with GH's eyewitness account, decided not to report the matter to his superiors.
I defy anyone to satisfactorily account for the above inconsistencies, and I'm afaid I will not accept for an anwser anything to the effect of "Oh, the police MUST have checked him out". |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1917
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
G'day,
George Hutchinson and his statement is a mystery within a mystery! Why did he wait three-quarters of an hour, after watching Mary and her well-dressed customer in the streets for at least 15 minutes?
The 'A to Z' says that ABBERLINE: 'possessed a more intimate knowledge of the East End and it's underworld than any police contemporary. Walter Dew...stressed that Abberline's knowledge of the district made him one of the most important members of the Whitechapel Murder case team.'
I therefore find it hard to believe that he didn't know about the existence of Petticoat Lane 'booty-scouts' or 'Watchers', ('minders' of prostitutes working the streets)! What made Abberline think Hutchinson would be a valuable witness to have at that stage? I believe Abberline found out Hutchinsons secrets during the interrogation and kept his secrets from the public and his superiors, because he thought that Hutchinson would make an ideal 'police-informant'.
'If Hutchinson's mystery man was the ripper, the latter can only have bided his time for an hour and a quarter before "striking". Does this seem likely?' Well Ben, that's what suggests to me that Mary Kelly's killer didn't enter Room 13 specifically to kill her! I also can't think why he would let Mary undress and fold her clothes neatly on the chair. That would have been an ideal time to 'catch' her while her mind was on other things, and she would have been less likely to scream "OH MURDER!".
No one climed inside Mary's window and surprised a sleeping victim! - too risky!
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 49
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
"I also can't think why he would let Mary undress and fold her clothes neatly on the chair."
But you're still positing the existance of the well-dressed stranger to explain away such things. We have it on the dubious authority of one man that Kelly ventured outdoors after 1:30ish that morning. But what if this never happened? What if she dispatched her blotchy-faced client some time around midnight, sang for a bit, folded her clothes, put them on the chair then went to bed?
Do we imagine that a prostitiute would fold her clothes in such a fashion when about to "service" a client. No, she'd hurl them aside and get on with it. The entire clothes-folding process is a solitary one, not something a prostitute would do in the presence of company.
This, I'm afriad, is another nail in the coffin to the "last client" theory. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 226
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 3:13 am: |
|
Leanne,
If you believe it was a social call gone wrong,why is the caller carrying so large a knife.
Ben makes a good point about the waiting period,if Hutchinson's man existed,and the cry came at near 4am.Unless you consider that person was not the last caller,that Barnett came calling later,and that his was a social call,but he came with a large knife on his person.
Gets complicated,doesn't it. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:07 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
I don't think you can make assumptions like that.
If Mary was a tidy person by nature, who liked to fold her clothes neatly, she could have done it on automatic pilot even when drunk or being badgered by an eager customer.
It might even have been part of the 'tease' by a professional 'Marie-Jeanette', offering a special customer her all-night service.
What I don't see is Mary, drunk and intending to sleep on her own, taking nearly all of her clothes off and retiring in just a skimpy chemise. It was November.
Love,
Caz
X |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 52
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
"What I don't see is Mary, drunk and intending to sleep on her own, taking nearly all of her clothes off and retiring in just a skimpy chemise. It was November"
I don't find this too problematic. Remember that Blotchy face was observed in the company of Kelly by fellow prostitute Mary Ann Cox. Kelly would have removed her warm clothes in order to service this client (whom I believe to have been her last, ever), and following his departure some time before 1.00am, may have folded her clothes and retired.
All the best,
Ben |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 81
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Would a chemise be standard night time wear or would it fall into the lingerie category, something to be reserved for a client?
c.d. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 229
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
What clothes Kelly wore in bed,would probably rely on what bedclothes she had to cover herself.
The top bedclothes has obviously been removed from over the body of the victim by the killer.It is reasonable to consider he would have deposited it at the foot of the bed.Pity there seems to be no record of what that bedclothes was. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
Sorry for the delay in replying.
Kelly would have removed her warm clothes in order to service this client (whom I believe to have been her last, ever), and following his departure some time before 1.00am, may have folded her clothes and retired.
You could be right. But there's no law that says 'a prostitute working indoors with own bed must remove all her clothes before servicing clients', while a prostitute outdoors keeps everything buttoned up (and only hoists her skirts and petticoats where servicing involves more than hand or mouth jobs).
In fact, I can't see Mary undressing for each client if she had to dress again to find the next, or sit shivering in her chemise waiting for her next client to knock. And I still think she would have worn a few more layers to bed for sleeping alone.
So if Mary was wearing just a chemise when she was attacked, in a room with a broken window, when more layers of clothing were available, I tend to think she was (or thought she was) about to deliver a 'special' and extended service, which wouldn't require her to a) dress again that night to look for more work, or b) add a layer or two to keep herself warm overnight; her kindly and generous Gentleman Jack would be taking care of both needs.
A 'special' and extended service is precisely as Jack would have described it - and it didn't cost him a penny piece.
Love,
Caz
X |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3327
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
HI Caz!
This 'Chemise' thing doesn't work for me!...am damned sure she wasn't wearing anything in the 'photograph'...that's a sheet am sure of it!!!!
Reading back through yr post I agree,she would have taken 'chummy'back to her room,(more than likely charged a lot more )and stripped.......shall we say..... as necessary!
Dressing up or down may have yielded
a few more pennies but the sad sight on the bed doesn't seem to show any signs of that does it..despite Maria's sad bits of clothing on the chair!
At the end of the day that small cold room with or without a fire was a damned dismal place to be on a cold November night... so IF ..Mary wasn't about to go out again....she (well I WOULD!) have dressed up in something or other and curled up under her blankets to keep warm !!!
The vision of Mary like that is a sad one......... fire gutterring with damp boots maybe.............
Not a penny Caz... but a 'hell 'of a night eh?!
A lot to be thought of here eh!!!!!
[Off to Wales this w/e catch ya soon!!!!!!..keep em in control 'eh! ]
Cheers
Suzi xx |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3328
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
NOT a chemise!!!!! Thought these'd make you Caz!
Heheeeeeeee
Desparate times eh!!!!!!
All together now BREATHE in!
LOL Suzi x |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3329
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Sorry this shouldnt be on this thread!!! But made me laugh!!!! Know (hope ) it will too Caz!!
LOL anyway where were we................
Suzi x |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 236
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 3:18 am: |
|
The question has been asked as to why Hutchinson,if he was the killer,did not come forward on the previous occasions when someone was seen with a victim,and the simple answer is he didn't need to.No one was seen with Nicholls,Chapman's companion was seen from the rear,and reported as foreign by Long.Suspicion in Stride's case was probably directed at the wrong person out of the two present,three if you count the man seen by Brown.Harris,Lawende's companion,says the face of the person seen with Eddowes could not be seen.So the only witnesses(excluding Long) were Jewish,persons not expected to be socially connected to Hutchinson,whose evidence of identification was weak in the extreme.The killer could afford ,under the circumstances,to sit tight. |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Hello Caz.
I believe that you are right.
There isn't a shred of evidence to prove that Hutchinson's statement was a fabrication. Abberline, who interrogated him, believed he was genuine.
If that was so, then what Hutch said would confirm your idea. He said that Kelly told the well-dressed man, "Come along my dear, you will be comfortable". The man had said, "You will be alright for what I have told you". These comments suggest an "all night sitting", and that Kelly had folded her clothes in anticipation of that.
Regards
ROD |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 237
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 2:19 am: |
|
Rodney,
It is as you say only a belief on Aberline's part that Hutchinson was telling the truth,and police officer or no,belief in a case such as this is not good enough.His story should have been checked as far as Aberline was able,before making a judgement.To give one instance,did Hutchinson go to Romford,how long was he there and at what time did he arrive back in Whitechapel.
It is no good saying that as a police officer Aberline would have done this,as there was insufficent time between the interview with Hutchinson,and the time he advised seniors in a report.That is only one element,there are others,and these discrepencies never seem to be observed by those in belief of Hutchinson.
That Monday evening,Aberline was likely a very tired man who made mistakes. |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 03, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
O.K. Harry.
Just give me one good reason, or any plausible motive for why Hutchinson would want to not only kill, but butcher Mary Kelly almost beyond recognition. What evidence do you have to contradict Hutchinson's statement ?? Have you got a record of Hutchinson's full conversation with Abberline ?? Have you a scrap of evidence to show that Hutch was in any way a violent man ??
Harry, let's come back to earth, from the land of make believe. Jack the Ripper butchered Kelly, just as he did Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and probably Stride too. I wouldn't bet money on a great deal in the Ripper case, but I'd bet the Bank of England that George Hutchinson was NOT Jack the Ripper.
Regards
ROD |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 71
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Hi Rodney,
I appreciate that your post was directed towards Harry, but I wonder if you might permit a brief interjection here.
You wrote: Just give me one good reason, or any plausible motive for why Hutchinson would want to not only kill, but butcher Mary Kelly almost beyond recognition.
You must take care not to labour under the oft-perpetuated delusion that serial killers must have a "plausible motive" to commit the acts they do. Jack the Ripper killed because killing afforded him a depraved satisfaction - one need not look for any "plausible motive" beyond that.
What evidence do you have to contradict Hutchinson's statement ??
I will refer to the thread, currently in session, entitled "Was Mary Killed In Her Sleep?" to be found in the "victims" sections.
Have you a scrap of evidence to show that Hutch was in any way a violent man ??
Have you a scrap of evidence to the effect that serial killers must *always* have a violent history?
Harry, let's come back to earth, from the land of make believe.
How inelegantly patronising. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 239
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 2:23 am: |
|
Rodney,
I do not argue with sarcasm.People who use such,deserve no right of reply. |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 12:58 am: |
|
Rodney, greetings from earth.
I have one small question, apart from the details of his confession of killing and assaulting a bunch of prostitutes have you a scrap of evidence to show that Peter Suttcliffe was in any way a violent man?
You seem to be of the mindset that anybody who is sure George Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper is an idiot. I put it to you that they're no less smarter than someone who is completely sure that he isn't. It seems to me that you regard anyone who has polar opinion of you must be a simpleton. I'd also assume from binary logic that you consider yourself intelligent.
To that I say leave the land of make believe.
Wintergreen |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 02, 2006 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Rodney,
Perhaps the proof that GH's statement is largely false is to be found in the fact two senior police officers later dismissed him as being a viable witness.
Bob Hinton |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 179
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 11:02 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
If two senior police officers later dismissed GH as being a viable witness, wouldn't you then expect them to consider him a suspect? If so, I have to conclude that although they didn't believe his story that they didn't consider him to be Mary's killer.
c.d. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 805
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 7:50 am: |
|
Hi c.d.,
You're right. They apparently didn't consider him to be MJK's killer. Maybe they thought he must have been a publicity seeker after all, or they didn't mention him because his information in the end lead to nothing. But of course, there's no way of knowing why they didn't mention him.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 157
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 9:32 am: |
|
If two senior police officers later dismissed GH as being a viable witness, wouldn't you then expect them to consider him a suspect?
Nah...As Frank suggests, they could have ruled him out as a publicity-seeker, if anything.
That was my first thought when I read the statement. I never even noticed the Sarah Lewis corroboration. How silly! |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Hello Bob
Might I be so bold as to ask you to say who these two senior police officers were, who later dismissed GH as a viable witness ?? Official documentation please, not unsupported heresay.
I have certainly yet to read of ANY senior officer who ever mentioned Hutchinson as a serious Ripper suspect.
If we're going to take the alleged word of the two officers you mention as gospel truth, then we must take the word of the highest ranking officials of all, who were in the position of knowing far more about this case than any of us could, or will EVER know.
I refer principally to Macnaghten & Anderson.
This means that the Ripper must have been either Druitt or Kosminski respectively. Nacnaghten was near certain about his suspect, and Anderson positively certain about his. We can't pick and choose whichever officer's word suits our own individual pet theories.
But NOBODY ever named Hutchinson as a suspect, except the amateur Ripperologists on these boards, 117 years later. Hutch's statement, and it's accuracy, is certainly open to many questions, and if false, we can only hazard a guess as to his motive. But I just don't see him as Jack the Ripper. Sorry Bob, Ben, & Harry.
For Wintergreen.
I dismiss your remarks about me with the contempt they deserve.
Regards ROD |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
