| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 3:21 pm: |       |
Joe Barnett moved out because Mary was keeping other prostitutes in the room. Why is it then that Mary was alone the night she was killed? And how could she use the room to service clients if there was another woman using it for the same purpose? I realize the 2nd question sounds a bit naive but all the same? |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 107
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 4:39 pm: | |
Diana,
Have posted this somewhere else either in 'Fire' or 'MJK or not MJK' But I think that Mary letting out her little 12x12 room had some form of rota with something like ' I'm off up to mrs Ringers..be out of here by ten'then all change..etc. I think this sort of thing probably went on all up and down Millers Ct..might explain a lot of the comings and goings commented on.Also might explain the footsteps leaving around 6.00am and give some credence to Mrs M
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 520
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 4:55 pm: | |
Hi Diana,
My suggestion is the reason why MjK was alone on her last night on earth, was because she was planning to entertain a client, who was going to pay her well, and she needed the room ,to be privately alone.
And I do not refer to the blotchy faced man carrying a quart of ale.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 113
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:30 pm: | |
Richard
My first reaction to your post was to say 'Whaaaat!!' then I thought again..what about the 'come with me and you will be comfortable' line..does that sound like the line you'd say to 'a gent'..maybe it does..I think that Mary was capable of swinging her verbal charms(!)whereever they were most useful ...but that night??
Well
All best chaps
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:43 pm: | |
G'day Diana,
Here's the story: Mary took in Julia Venturney, against Barnett's wishes, on or around 27 October 1888. Where she slept is anyones guess.
As soon as Julia found her own room nearby, Maria Harvey was asked to stay. The date was 30 Oct. That's when Barnett moved out and Kelly smashed the window.
When Joe visited Mary the day of her murder, Maria was no longer living there, but Joe wasn't asked to move back!
I don't know if Mary regularly used her room to service clients, but when she was murdered she was desperate for rent money.
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 3:10 am: | |
Hi,
Most people assume that , kelly asked these women to stay over with her, for monetary gain, I would suggest, it was for company,for I maintain that because of Barnetts ramblings over these murders, she had become paranoid,with fear, and It would not surprise me if Barnett left her alone at nights on purpose, mayby frequented lodging houses, in order to frighten her into stopping her prostitution, for after the double murder, it became apparently clear to him , that she was still adamant in plying her trade.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 156
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Richard
Good point about the company..can't get away from the bit about Mary asking JB to read to her from the papers re. the murders though there's something odd about thatAlso the Lizzie Albrook/Maria Harvey confusion at the time of JB's last visit..he knew MH but allegedly not LA I reckon MH had been to No 13 earlier in the evening,left the clothes,left and then LA had arrived ,still to be there with MJK when JB arrived (Lots of abbreviations here sorry!)
Cheers
Suzi |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 9:09 am: | |
Richard,
Mary Kelly we are told, was in a state of intoxication the night she was murdered. Would she have have let herself get into this drunken state if she knew she was going to entertain a supposedly wealthy client? Surely, she would have wanted to make a good impression on her client, to ensure future employment? Remember Kelly didn't know she was about to be murdered. Just a thought.
Cludgy |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 178
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 6:08 am: | |
Cludgy
Perhaps it was the 'wealthy client' who was responsible for Mary's supposed 'state' Strikes me that Mary was rarely out of a 'state'!..despite it's attendant 'horrors'
Cheers
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 559
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 4:34 am: | |
Hi ,
According to Hutchinson, she was a bit spreeish, although this was about two hours after she appeared drunk by Mrs cox, lets not forget, kelly was seen with a well dressed gentleman earlier in the evening, who may well have fortified her with gin, which would have proberly in his opinion, have made it more relaxed when they returned to her room.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 224
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
Richard
Don't you love the idea of being a 'bit spreeish'!!! Spreeish as a rat probably!!
Hic
Suzi |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 1:03 pm: | |
Richard,
Thats true. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 282
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 5:18 pm: | |
Cludgy/Richard
Makes sense doesn't it..wealthy client/Hutch man...Hmmm I still think that this character would have been seriously rolled over or at the very least noticed by the good residents of Dorset St and environs if he'd been wearing that noticable apparal!! Disguise springs to mind..mind you what did he do with all that 'posh' kit ...burn it in |Millers Court??
Astrakan would go up nicely!!
Not being flippant..just can't believe that this character would have passed unnoticed amongst the usual personnel in this area!!
A toff!!..let's sort him!!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 3:42 am: | |
Hi Suzi,
I do not believe, that well dressed, people were that abnormal, in the area, business men, ie shop keepers, would have had there sunday best, although I must admit, hutchinsons description, was overcooked, yet as I have said before, as it was on the eve of The lord mayors show, there would have been an explanation , for the flashy gear.
I believe, the man put out his arm to detain kelly,as a Excuse me miss reaction, and he was simply enquiring if, she knew of some private accomodation, that was not a common lodging house, as he would obviously not risk, entering that establishment, in that attire.
That would have amused Kelly, and she said ' I have'
An offer could have been suggested, and he said'You will be all right for what I have told you' to which she replied' all right my dear, you will be comftable'
The word comftable , could suggest a room to rest in, out of the conditions on the streets. and may not imply just a quickie.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 4:52 am: | |
Hi Richard
Then why did he put his arm round her shoulders?
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 294
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 7:14 am: | |
Richard,
Take your points re clothing..The Lord Mayor's Show of course must be a consideration.
Robert-
Perhaps to just steer her in the direction of the proferred room,maybe it wasn't an intimate gesture..There again there's the kiss..
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Hi Robert, and Suzi,
He was male, she according to reports[ at least some] was not unattractive, therefore I would imagine, he sought to kill two birds with one stone, he could have course just have been being a gentleman, the kiss, as it was administered, by Kelly, could have been an encouraging gesture, or just 'thanks for coming along.
We do not know , what type of kiss, was planted on Astracan, a peck, or a snog.
I can see no harm , if this man was a gent, why he should not place his arm around her shoulder, whilst walking back to Dorset street.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 301
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 4:12 pm: | |
Richard
I agree..an arm around the shoulders is not such an intimate gesture as say holding hands..it suggests a come long dear,let me help you along on our way sort of thing as opposed to a promised intimacy..as you say an encouraging gesture.
Obviously a real gent..a proper toff!
Re the kiss ..who knows but I imagine it may have been somewhere between the two you mention!
Cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1866
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Hi all
I would have thought that in late Victorian times a gentleman might hold out his arm for a lady to hold onto, but to put his arm round her shoulders....well let's just say that I believe that this man was simply a punter.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 478
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Hello All
I am not entirely sure we should take it for granted that the posh gentleman Hutchinson described actually existed. Based on the amazing details Hutchinson provided I wonder if he didn't just make the details up from his imagination.
Robert- I have spoken with your new underling, Glenn and I am confident the two of you will work well together. I felt it only fair, however to point out to him that you are a harsh taskmaster with a cruel streak. I would go easy on the lad for the first few days of your new association.
All The Best
Gary |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 307
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Robert
Underling 'eh?? Wait till Glenn sees this!!..if you're going to be a hard taskmaster..think I'll stick to the poesie!!
Gary
You may have a point about the non-existance..but as yet I'm not persuaded that Hutch didn't have something in what passed for his mind at the time!!
Off to watch Alan Clarke Diaries.. be back later!
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 6:00 pm: | |
Hi Gary
Of course, I agree that GH's description is highly embellished. If I sometimes call the man he claims to have seen "the posh man", it's just a way of identifying him. The man he claims to have seen may not have been posh at all.
But I feel he probably saw someone - this would seem the natural explanation for his hanging around and gazing up the Court as if waiting for someone. But maybe he didn't see anyone at all, after all!
Re Glenn, I have high hopes for the lad. I will go particularly easy on him on his first day - he'll only have to make me 30 cups of tea, instead of the usual 60, plus do a bit of shopping for me, that sort of thing.
I see you are approaching your Chief Inspectorship! This means you will soon have permission to walk with one trouser leg rolled up (masonic rules are very strict, I'm afraid, and walking with both trouser legs rolled up is reserved for Assistant Commissioners).
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 479
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 6:14 pm: | |
Hi Robert
I may be so distrustful of Hutchinson that I may be prone to jump to conclusions regarding what he may or may not have seen.
I'm approaching my new status as a Chief Inspector with both trepidation and high anticipation. I have heard rumours that Leanne is going to demand that I accept Barnett as the Ripper as a test of loyalty to the higher ups.
You know how political these things can become.
All The Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 6:41 pm: | |
Hi Gary
I'd almost be prepared to accept GH as Anderson's Jewish witness - despite the unbelievable nature of his description - if it wasn't for his apparent eagerness to find "the posh man", and the fact that he was quite prepared to mention his Jewish appearance - so he'd hardly have had scruples later. I find the whole GH business intriguing and maddening.
Re Leanne, I am creating a special division, to be known as "Scotland Yard, Mountie Division". You are the only member. This will take you altogether outside Leanne's influence and control.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 317
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 7:01 pm: | |
Robert-
Dont Mounties 'Always get their man!!' Watch out if I were you!! p.s. have a look on pubtalk on jtr intimacy kit! and the poesie thread
Come on chaps!!. the 'posh' man..??
The question always has to be (being serious now..for once!) WHY did Hutch hang around for those 45 mins (to see if someone came out??!!! perlease!!!)
Robert-
New thread and any answers??
..............................well??
x
suzi |
