Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through April 22, 2003 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Catherine Eddowes » Did Eddowes Know Who Jack Was? » Archive through April 22, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie

Post Number: 91
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 5:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Catharine Eddowes told the superintendent at the casual ward in Shoe Lane, that she had come back "to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him."

The superintendent told her to beware that the killer didn't come for her. She said: "Oh, no fear of that."

Some have suggested that 'Jack' killed Eddowes, because she was about to turn him in. I wonder:

1) Did she really make this statement, at all?

2) If she did make this statement, then did Catharine really have a person in mind, or was she simply making up a story?

3) If she did have someone in mind, was he likely to be the correct suspect?

4) How did she know? Guesswork? Gossip?

4) Did she tell John Kelly any of this?

5) Did she tell the police, the night she was arrested?

6) Where was she going, when she was released?

John Kelly had heard that she had been arrested. So it's likely that 'Jack' had also heard that she was going to turn him in- because gossip seems to have travelled fast.

I'm not sure how much faith I put in all this. But if it's true, it certainly puts her murder in a different light. If taken as true- I'm thinking she most likely had a local man in mind, because I don't think she moved in very wide social circles.

Any thoughts, comments welcome!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 5:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Marie,
I agree with you , in the fact that it is strange that this woman was reported to have bragged of knowing the killers identity, and then killed, especially as she had been hop picking since the Nichols murder , therefore she must have been aware if telling the truth of a strange character in the area very early on in these murders,. if so Why did she enter Mitre Square with her killer, of course she may have been dragged to her death then she would have had no choice in the matter.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert

Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 7:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Marie, Richard

If Eddowes did think she knew who the killer was, why didn't she tell the police double-quick? After all, she was destitute.

Also, why would she have confided in the City police? There weren't any City murders until her own.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie

Post Number: 95
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 5:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Richard, Robert.

One thing that bothers me a lot, is that Catharine was seen talking with her killer, and not resisting him. If she was correct in her assumption, I think she would have tried to get away, as soon as possible.

What you say, Richard, about Catharine having been hopping since the Nichols murder, is very interesting. So she must have decided who the killer was quite early on, or perhaps she became aware of something, while she was hopping.

Robert- it also bothers me why she didn't tell the police, as soon as she realized who the killer was. Or perhaps she realized who the killer might be, as she and Kelly were walking home. How much gossip was coming up from London?

I don't think she told the Police, the night she was arrested.

I tend to think that perhaps she was just making up stories/ bragging. After all, she was turned out of the casual ward, possibly for fighting. She doesn't seem like a very reliable character.

Could it be that her empty bragging spooked the killer, and she lost her life as a result?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack

Post Number: 52
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 11:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Marie, Richard, Robert.

Catharine Eddowes said "I think I know him". so perhaps she wasn't 100% convinced, and needed to get some more information before informing the police. Either way she doesn't sound positive.
She also said she come back to earn the reward money. So something may of happened around the 26/27 September, that made her suspicious of someone? The Inquest into the murder of Annie Chapman finished on the 26 September with Coroner Baxters summing up. Perhaps she read something in the newspaper that aroused her suspicion? The only thing I noticed was about the American doctor trying to procure human organs.
Marie, I understand what you are saying when Catharine was seen talking to the killer and was calm, but I don't think she expected to be attacked in an open street with people about. Also I don't think we can dismiss the possibillity that Jack had an accomplice, and that was who she was talking to without realizing it.

All the best

Rob
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 5:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Relevant perhaps that Eddowes would have been unwilling to talk to the Metropolitan police but rather the City police.
I myself still find it all rather frail that soon upon her return to London Eddowes was arrested for drunkeness - and as I have pointed out before if the police had arrested everyone who was drunk in Whitechapel at the time they would have had a major logistics problem on their hands.

Woman claims to know identity of Jack.
Woman arrested by police.
Woman released by police.
Woman killed outside policeman's house.

Anyways, didn't I once read somewhere that Eddowes's daughter claimed her mother had once had a long term relationship with a policeman?

4 old pence was not a lot of money to engage an 'unfortunate' in her task but even so I would imagine that there were a considerable number of policemen around who would have seen that much like the police of today who will go out of their way to get a free cup of coffee rather than pay sixty new pence for that coffee.
Squeaky clean police force in 1888?
Forget it.
Let us ponder - with due history and regard - what is now unfolding in the province of Northern Ireland as regards the behaviour and secrecy of a police force with some kind of vested interest to protect.
Murder - so it would appear - is perfectly acceptable when done in the name of the 'force'.
The 'force' must be reckoned with in this quest.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert

Post Number: 42
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 7:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hallo Marie, Richard, Rob, AP

AP, I have read and enjoyed your book, and I want to read it a second time, then post to the review thread. Thank you for putting it online.

I find your theory extremely interesting, but I don't quite follow you on Eddowes. Are you saying
that she was murdered and mutilated by a policeman, not by Cutbush? Or did the police set Eddowes up for Cutbush to murder?

Robert


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie

Post Number: 98
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 8:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Robert C: it's possible that Catherine was talking to an accomplice of Jack's. But I still think that if she knew who Jack was, she would have probably been aware of an accomplice.

Perhaps she just assumed that 'Jack' was unaware that she was going to turn him in, so she thought she was safe. All the same, she would have been nervous, and perhaps that's why she had her hand on his chest- an unconscious placatory gesture?

Hi AP Wolf- I've got to wonder how Catherine would have known Cutbush, at all?

Wasn't she supposedly in bed by 9 or 10pm? So I don't think that she could have come across him during his 'midnight rambles'. At any rate, she supposedly wasn't a known prostitute.

I'm not sure we can assume that: "Eddowes would have been unwilling to talk to the Metropolitan police but rather the City police." We don't know that she talked to anyone.

Even if she did know Cutbush, how would she have known that his uncle was an important man in the police force? Unless he went around telling people, I find it unlikely they would have known.

I think I also read that Eddowes had a relationship with a policeman, but I can't find it now.

Regarding her arrest, she had supposedly drawn a large crowd by screaming like a fire engine. Then she curled up and went to sleep on the street. The arresting Officer supposedly asked the crowd if anyone knew her, and nobody did. She couldn't even stand up, and couldn't look after herself, so he had no option but to take her in.

Unless you're questioning the veracity of the official reasons for her arrest.....?

But I wonder who got her so drunk. Unless she was turning tricks without Kelly's knowledge, and she then spent that money on alcohol. Perhaps that's why she didn't want to go straight home to Kelly's questions about how she had gotten the money to get drunk.

Where did I read that John kelly told Kate to beware of the Ripper, before they parted in the aftrenoon? (I'm not making this up, am I?!) If she wasn't a prostitute, and was only going to see her daughter, why should she especially beware?

Did he know she occasionally turned tricks when they were desperate, and he didn't want to admit this to the authorities?

Or did she tell him that she knew who Jack was? In that case, why didn't HE mention this to the Police?

PS> *Have changed spelling back to 'Catherine', on advice from John Ruffles in another thread*.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 1:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert

as a sparring partner of mine recently said about the Jack crimes: 'lot of smoke and mirrors involved'.
And Eddowes case is a prime example.
I don't really have what you call a 'theory' but I do have an uneasy feeling about Eddowes' murder.
I suppose the angle I am attempting to explore in my usual oblique fashion is that whatever Eddowes was doing drunk in Aldgate High Street had something to do with the identity of Jack the Ripper. As part of this jolly game she was arrested by the police and confined at BPS for the night, upon her release she seemed to be heading back to the area of Aldgate High Street and met her fate in Mitre Square. I feel - I don't 'know' - that whoever she met after her release was what I would term as a go-between twixt herself and Jack, and that the intent was to silence her, one way or t'other, as we know it was t'other.
Now if Jack was Thomas then that go-between would have been good old uncle Charles.
Now if good old uncle Charles was Jack then that go-between would have been Thomas.
Personally I wouldn't like to have met either of the pair in the dark, especially if I was a Catholic.
Thank you for your kind comments about Myth.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 1:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Marie

I am quite sure that everybody in Whitechapel in those days knew exactly who was a policeman, where they lived and who their relations were.
Their suspect - and sometimes honest - methods of earning a wage probably depended on it.
As Thomas was employed in the Whitechapel area canvassing for a business directory there are a myriad of possibilities of him knowing all the victims. More importantly perhaps is the fact that his uncle, Charles, was directly in charge of the recording and policing of all the common lodging houses in Whitechapel which would of course give him a quite unique knowledge of and relationship to all of the victims, and as I have recently pointed out was at one time directly in charge of and personally involved in the investigation of the crimes in 1888.
I'm beginning to question the veracity of any police official concerned in this investigation.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie

Post Number: 104
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 6:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hmmmm. You're probably right about people knowing the various police connections of others in the neighbourhood, AP.

I do agree that there's possibly something in the Eddowes murder, that holds the key to Jack's identity. But I'm personally leaning towards some local man having overheard that she was arrested, and that this local man was Jack.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 5:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Marie

Jack's identity?
Work your way through this.

A policeman’s lot is not a happy one,
for a public feast accompanies his fun.
And it is of course quite beyond the word of law,
for him to have carnal knowledge of a whore.
But a bobby be nowt if not a normal man,
walking his bitter beat to God’s great plan.
Temptation at four pence a throw,
then temptation he’ll give it a go.

And in that dark furrow he will sow,
some dark seed that will dark grow.

When sisters become wives,
then in the time of knives,
great slaying will take place,
and a face will be no face.
In the rutting will be a cutting.
And then the blood shall flow,
as dark seed does dark grow.

Dark deeds and dark seeds,
of which I cannot tell,
Yours truly mishter Lusk
from Hell.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack

Post Number: 53
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 6:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Marie, AP, Richard, Robert

Marie, 'The Daily Telegraph' 4 October 1888, had this to say: The last words addressed to her [from John Kelly] were a caution to beware of the "Knife," an allusion to the Whitechapel Murderer. She replied, "Oh, don't fear for me: I'll take care," and went off.
According to John Kelly's inquest testimony, Catherine Eddowes believed her daughter was living at King Street, Bermondsey, when in fact she had left there two years previously and was now living at Dilstone Grove, the reason Annie Phillips didn't tell her mother her new address was because she was a persistant scrounger. If that was the case then wouldn't Catherine Eddowes have known her daughter wasn't living in King Street anymore? especially if she was a 'persistant' scrounger? Did Catherine Eddowes intend to go and see her daughter?

AP, after reading your book and your contribution to 'The Mamouth book of Jack the Ripper', you seem to point the finger of guilt at Thomas Cutbush, but go on to say "I'm not saying Thomas Cutbush was Jack the Ripper" and then you go on to say Jack the Ripper was living at 29 Aldgate High Street (where Catherine Eddowes was arrested for being drunk), you don't say who was living there, it was Thomas Cutbush as he was supposedly living in Albert Street, Kennington. I am guessing but was the person living at 29 Aldgate High Street, Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush? Thomas's uncle.
AP, you should start your own thread "The Rhymes and Crimes of Jack the Ripper".

One last and perhaps unrelated point. I was rereading P.C. Harveys inquest testimony and he states that he was in Aldgate near Mitre Street, when George Morris the watchman informed him of Catherine Eddowes murder. It is about two minutes walk from the end of Church Passage to where George Morris found him. What I am suggesting is perhaps he got to the end of Church Passage nearer to 1:45 and not 1:40 as he said at the inquest. He must have missed P.C. Watkins by seconds, and also have given Jack the Ripper a bit more time to mutilate Catherine Eddowes.
Also when he got to Mitre Square he states "Private individuals were sent for other Constables, arriving almost immediately. Who were these private individuals? and were they there when he arrived?

Rob
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert

Post Number: 45
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 8:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Marie, AP, Rob, Richard

(I'm still pondering your latest poem, AP. The bad news is, I don't quite understand it. The good news is, there's no kidney in my Email.)

Rob, yes the daughter business needs explaining. A cover story for prostitution, perhaps? She got the money for drink from somewhere. I don't think it could have been from Uncle Charles, because if he was anxious to silence her, surely he wouldn't have got her roaring drunk in the High Street?
I also agree that there's something funny about Harvey's account of his movements. Had he really been at the end of Church Passage at the time he estimated, it's difficult to see how there would have been enough time for everything to have happened. So I suspect that either he didn't go down the passage at all, or, as you suggest, he went down it a bit later.

Maybe the reason Eddowes went back to Aldgate was simply that during her binge and her fallings over, something dropped out of her pocket and she wanted to find it. If it was something important, that might explain her fear of a hiding, and account for the 35 minute gap between her release from BPS and her sighting by Lawende. Perhaps she just bumped into Jack (who still could have been Cutbush) by chance.

I'm not sure that, taken as a fact in isolation, her arrest for drunkenness was all that suspicious. As you say, Marie, she was making rather a scene. She wasn't just sleeping underneath some arches somewhere, she was putting on a cabaret in the High Street. Besides, this was the City, not Whitechapel, so surely there were fewer drunks for the police to have to accommodate? And the City police only kept the drunks until they'd sobered up - then they released them. So I'm not sure how great a logistical problem they would have had, really.

It does look suspicious that Eddowes was killed after claiming to know Jack's identity, but we'd have to set that against the number of people who made the same claim, and weren't murdered. A lot of people claimed to know who he was.

What I do find suspicious is the combination of her claiming to know the Ripper AND being murdered in a place that was off her beaten track. And just as she goes off her beaten track, Jack does the same.

I'm at a loss what to make of Major Smith's remark "Had she been followed, and men called to guard the approaches, the murderer would to a certainty have been taken red-handed." This sounds as if Smith was prepared to sacrifice Eddowes in order to catch the Ripper!

I think, AP, that my answer to the question of whether Eddowes knew who Jack was, will hinge on how much I buy into your Cutbush hypothesis (as I'll term it, if you don't want to call it a theory) - something I'll have a better idea about once I've re-read your book! But even without the Eddowes factor, the Cutbush pair are very interesting characters.

I've been trying to imagine the mechanics by which they would have murdered Eddowes, because I need to visualise this thing step by step. When I've done it, I'll try to post it.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie

Post Number: 106
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 6:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

AP, that poem was really poignant, I enjoyed it. I'm printing it out, because it's inspired me with an idea for a painting.

As to it's meaning....hmmmm! OK, well this is the second time that you've mentioned the idea that Mary may have been facially disfigured, in order to prevent her identification. Did she have an affair with Charles Cutbush? Did Eddowes know about this? When you write 'seed', is this a metaphor for an idea (the idea to kill certain prostitutes), or is this a metaphor for a pregnancy?

I think you have a theory that you're not disclosing, and you keep dropping all these tantalizing hints. Am I even warm, with my guesses?

Robert C: Thank you! I thought I was going off my rocker, I couldn't remember where I'd read that.

Like you, I'm fairly certain that Catherine would have known that her daughter had moved, especially if she was a persistant scrounger. So this makes her claim of setting off to find her daughter, pretty suspect. I think she might have been turning tricks, and she spent that money on getting drunk, instead of bringing it home to John. She may have only meant to have one drink, but got carried away. Perhaps that's why she was reluctant to go home

I'm just wondering if John Kelly was aware that she was prostituting herself, and reluctantly agreed because they were starving? That would be the only reason I could think why he told her to beware of 'the knife'. Unless she told him (while they were hopping) that she was going to turn 'Jack' in, and that's why he was afraid for her.

And lastly, I agree with you regarding PC Harvey's statements. I think that a lot of the times we have in this case are approximations, rather than definite.

Robert L, I agree with your post, and this statement in particular: "What I do find suspicious is the combination of her claiming to know the Ripper AND being murdered in a place that was off her beaten track. And just as she goes off her beaten track, Jack does the same".

But regarding Major Smith's remark, I think he could have meant that the killer would have been apprehended whilst approaching Eddowes, or whilst talking with her. Not necessarily whilst killing her.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Sergeant
Username: Robert

Post Number: 46
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 8:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hallo everybody

Let's suppose the following : Young Tom has been shambling round the East End, sleeping in dosshouses - establishents which his Uncle Charles is in charge of. At some point, Eddowes sees or hears something that makes her suspicious of Tom. While on holiday, she becomes certain he's the killer - perhaps, as Rob suggested, she reads something in the papers. So she breaks off her holiday and returns to claim the reward. Once back, however, she foolishly voices her intentions at Shoe Lane. This naturally reaches the ears of the Cutbushes, and they decide to silence her.

On the 29th, Uncle Charles follows her. He has her arrested for drunkenness and taken to BPS, whence he knows she'll be released in the early hours. When she comes out, he intercepts her and conducts her to Mitre Square. Perhaps he gives her a few tots from a hip flask on the way, although Lawende doesn't say that the woman he saw looked tipsy.

With their inside information, the Cutbushes know the timings of the bobbies' beats, and anyway, perhaps Uncle Charles induces Harvey to keep away from the Square. While uncle Charles keeps watch, young Tom butchers Eddowes. If PC Pearce, or anyone else, catches them in the act, they're ready to say that they've just didcovered the body, were just examining it, and their approach had panicked the killer into leaving his knife behind. With his high rank, Uncle Charles might have pulled that one off.

But why wouldn't they do the deed in Whitechapel instead, where Uncle Charles could organise all kinds of wild goose chases and smokescreens? The only reason I can think of, is that they wanted to exploit the rivalry between the City and Met forces. So they kill Eddowes in City territory and leave a clue (apron) in Met territory. Perhaps one of them has even chalked the graffito on the wall in advance, knowing the confusion it will cause. Then it will be just a matter of leaving the clue on the correct spot, and the murderer won't have needed to risk writing the message while actually on the run.

But surely, the timing's all wrong. Eddowes was still only as far as the entrance to Church Passage 5 minutes into their 15 minute window of opportunity, which sounds wrong. And if any lower ranking policemen did give help before or after the murder, they don't appear to have been rewarded. Nothing spectacular seems to have happened to the careers of Robinson, or Byfield,
or Hutt, or Watkins after the murder, while Harvey was actually sacked a year later.

Again, would the chaotic Thomas have been able to be in the right place, at the right time, for a plan like this to work? And why would Charles wait until the drunken Eddowes was at the passing out stage - before which, she might have blurted out anything - before having her arrested? Furthermore, Eddowes was at Aldgate with Kelly at 2 PM. Uncle Charles must have followed her around till her arrest, then gone off to locate Young Tom and rehearse him in his role, then got back to collect Eddowes.....he'd have been on the go for at least 11 hours. Previously it's been suggested that the police were having a welcome cup of tea when the Ripper struck. At this rate, the Ripper's accomplice would have been joining them!

Of course, Uncle Charles might simply have heard that Eddowes had been arrested, but why should he have? Someone did tell Kelly, but that's because he was known to have had an interest in her.
Alternatively, Uncle Charles may have had some of his men follow Eddowes and keep him up to date with her movements, but that opens up a whole new can of worms....

The man seen by Lawende sounds a lot more like Young Tom than Uncle Charles, yet surely it couldn't have been Young Tom, if Eddowes suspected him. She'd have been off. When warned that the Ripper might kill her, she replied, "Oh, no fear of that", so I don't think she'd have taken any chances.

And why on earth didn't Eddowes tell her story the day she got back from holiday? If she didn't trust the police with it, the papers would have been interested. If I won the Lottery - mathematically my chances are slim, as I never play it - I'd cash in my ticket instantly. Something might happen to the ticket - or to me.

PS I did momentarily wonder whether Smith meant that if Eddowes's approaches to the City police had been guarded - ie such as not to alert the murderer - and if she'd then been followed around, then Jack could have been caught. But I don't suppose he could have meant this. I haven't read his memoirs, so I don't know the context of the remark.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie

Post Number: 108
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 12:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

Robert L, that's an excellent post. It'll take me a couple of hours to get my head around it- but I do have some comments.

AP, is this part of the poem: "Yours truly mishter Lusk
from Hell."


a reference to Charles Cutbush's hatred/fear of Catholics? The Lusk letter could sound like it's mocking an Irish accent.

Was Lusk Irish?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 1:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert (Clack)

The issue with 29 Aldgate High Street was resolved on the boards some time ago where I was well and truly pasted for my audacity and cheek, for I didn't actually know who lived at that address and threw it in as live bait in the hope of provoking debate.
I do though remember one researcher telling me that Eddowe's daughters new address was similar to 'Aldgate High Street' and in her drunken confusion he felt she may have ended up there.
Not sure about that though.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 1:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Marie

these little poesies of mine are mostly written late at night when I am well and truly in my cups, so I often don't understand what they mean.
However when I read through them the next day I do find that something involving this case has been niggling at me ever so slightly, that I am probably not aware of it on the normal level.
In this particular poesie I obviously feel that some kind of illicit and perhaps illegal relationship may lay at the heart of these crimes, perhaps sister/brother, perhaps uncle/nephew... perhaps not, but something was going on under the bedclothes. Please don't misunderstand me, I do not mean that this illicit relationship prompted the crimes, rather it was the precursor to the entire affair.
I also see something going on between Thomas and Charles that was very unhealthy.
All in all, blood thicker than water. In this case perhaps too thick.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 1:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Robert (Linford)

I enjoyed the scenario you painted for us, quite plausible but with the inherent faults you do point out.
I could see it all being a bit simpler than that though, with the saner of the two - not much saner I'll admit but still holding down his job at Scotland Yard - firstly accosting Eddowe's in a fairly safe situation for her and then directing her into the darkness of the square where the real maniac had been told to wait and to expect the arrival of a Catholic whore at any minute who had been poisoning the Cutbush family.
A man of the calibre of Thomas Cutbush or Richard Chase would need little encouragement to murder and mutilate, be like someone opening the sweetshop door and saying help yourself.
I'm still not sure just how the whole situation pans out which is why I am so glad to see active discussion and research ongoing about the strange Cutbush family.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 1:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Marie

I remain convinced that Charles Henry Cutbush's obsession and hatred of Catholics is the essential answer to the identity of Jack.
I also remain convinced that a young man like Thomas could have written the 'From Hell' letter.
I believe Lusk was Irish, not sure.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie

Post Number: 109
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 4:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

AP Wolf, you write well when you're in your cups! Ok, then scratch my befuddled guesses. You could be right about Charles and Thomas Cutbush. Yes, I agree that there's usually some type of illicit sexual core issue relating to these types of crimes. And of course, the Catholic issue is quite interesting.

Well, I think that Robert Linford brought up all the arguments that could be applied against the scenario he wrote. I thought I had more to add, Robert, but you seem to have covered all the points that are difficult with it.

The main thing is, the scenario's so very complicated. It's like we're trying too hard to make the pieces fit. I can't help feeling that there's a much simpler explanation.

The fact is, Eddowes claimed she knew Jack, and then he kills her (out of his usual territory, which points at the fact that she was a specific victim).

And then there's Mary. Joe Barnett stated that: "She had on several occasions asked me to read about the murders she seemed afraid of some one, she did not express fear of any particular individual except when she rowed with me but we always came to terms quickly".

I've always been intrigued by this statement, because here Joe is contradicting himself. Mary is afraid of 'some one' relating to the murders, yet did not express fear of anyone in particular, except when she rowed with Joe.

The reasons why I place so much emphasis on the murders of Eddowes and Kelly, is that certain statements point to the fact that they knew who the killer was. But yet Catherine talks to him whilst she's alone at night (Lawende's statement), and Mary takes him home with her (the locked door issue).

Why, why, why?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 6:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Marie

Just to scratch a sore
I couldn't agree more.
When child comes home covered in mud,
somewhere there is a worm in the bud.
A flowering soured by religious crud,
a seasoning soured with spoilt blood.
And a weed with which we grow
is a comfortable weed to know.
With comfortable sigh
the answer why.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Detective Sergeant
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 4:30 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi,
Following on the discussion Did Eddowes know the identity of the Ripper.?
On sunday afternoon I had a brand new thought I hope it is not the result of a few lunchtime pints...
I started a new thread called Mistaken Identity, for I became aware of how similar the first three victims Tabram , Nichols, and Chapman were in features and build.
Because of this I mentioned is it not at all possible that the killer was after Chapman, and the other two were killed by mistake.
When Chapman was killed Eddowes was hop picking, yet on returning she seems to have an insight to the killers identity, therefore is it not possible that she was a friend of Chapmans, and she remembered an occassion when they were accosted by a sinister man, and on hearing of her death thought this person could be the whitechapel murderer?.
I know this is a new idea and it would eliminate a few fav suspects including my own, but worth a mention for Tabram , Nichols, and Chapman were so alike they could have been related, also Stride ,and Eddowes features are strikenly similar.
Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie

Post Number: 112
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 12:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi all,

AP, I hope you don't mind my using your poems as inspiration for my artwork. They're wonderfully dark, and set the creative mood just right for me. If I'm feeling very brave, I'll scan my favourite painting into my profile sometime.

Richard,

I would have to agree with you that Nichols, Chapman, and Tabram look very much alike. But I would have to disagree about Eddowes and Stride, the photos look very different, to my mind.

If someone was out to kill Chapman, one would have to ask the question why? She was an 'unfortunate', and those women were either killed by:

1) Men they knew, and lived with
2) Muggers, or punters.

In other words, 'spur of the moment' killings. I honestly can't think of a reason why someone who didn't know what she looked like, would have wanted to kill her. We would have to assume she had information about someone, and there's nothing really that points to that....

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.