| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 12:55 am: |       |
Pherhaps I'm nit picking here but it seems to me that some of the best writers on JTR insist on spelling Ms Eddowes name Catherine intead of Catharine. Spellcheck may explain the problem.
From the records we know that Catharine, with an "a" was her mother's name so this could be a family spelling. I also note from the census records that Catharine is a more common spelling than I had realized
Having said that it is probably a moot point because I believe Catharine went by Kate; Kate Eddowes, Kate Conway and Kate Kelly, Mary Kelly or Mary Ann Kelly.
Nevertheless, out of respect for the poor woman and her tragic fate we should repect her given name.
g |
Neal Shelden
Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 25
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 - 2:31 pm: | |
Hi Gary,
I always call Eddowes "Catherine" because it was the spelling she used herself. Although, you're right to put forward the point that in most records she more commonly used Kate after 1863.
I can't remember as to which spelling her mother used when she married George Eddowes in 1832, but I feel sure that the only time the name was given as Catharine was on the birth certificate of her daughter in 1842. Therefore, I always spell her name as Catherine.
All the best
Neal |
Guy Hatton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 8:11 am: | |
Stewart Evans placed a very persuasive argument for Catherine as opposed to Catharine on the old boards some time ago. If you have the CD, I expect you'll find it archived there.
All the Best
Guy |
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2003 - 7:51 pm: | |
Neal
I have both your books on order from England. I
hope they don't sell out before I get my copies
Thanks to Guy and yourself for helping to clarify Ms. Eddowes name.
All The Best
Gary |
Sarah Eddowes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 9:07 pm: | |
On the subject of mis-spelt names - why is Catherine's surname spelt Eddows on the 1996 gravestone when I have only ever seen it spelt Eddowes in reports and books etc 
Feel protective over the surname, as it is something we share, and have suffered a lifetime of mis-spellings and mis-pronunciations! |
NICK EDDOWES
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 8:48 pm: | |
To Sarah EDDOWES!I have had the same problem for the last 26+ years of my 44 year life.My sympathys,worse still is when some clever police officer thinks it's funny to give you a copy of a ripper book cos NOBODY is really related to Catherine.which is how it's spelt on the family tree. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 347
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 8:43 am: | |
Latest from the Old Folks home...
..Yes I know what I said but while I was pottering about the house I came across a Fruiterer by the name of Landers.
This Landers had a connection with John Kelly.....Kates Eddowes John Kelly who sold fruit from time to time.
I can now hear the Barnettists creeping upon my landing.
Is there any info on Landers?? Is this the Barnett/Eddowes connection???
Monty...who got really bored and couldnt keep away...but he did try !!!
(Message edited by monty on November 10, 2003) |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 161
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 8:57 am: | |
Welcome Back Monty!
while I was pottering about the house I came across a Fruiterer by the name of Landers.
Don't you just hate it when that happens. I once found a florist on the upstairs landing. And I just can't seem to keep the bathroom free from fishmongers. Just think I've managed to get rid of them all and another one pops up!  |
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 9:05 am: | |
Monty,
You should know by now that you can't just stop using the message boards,you have to ween yourself off them.
Have you tried Ripperteen patches? They are supposed to be very effective.
I know somebody who used them and after only three weeks his craving to don a leather apron had completely gone!
Good luck,
Steven |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 350
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 11:37 am: | |
Very good boys...very good,
Now, Lander........the missing Eddowes/Barnett link ??
Monty
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 6:16 pm: | |
AAAAAAAAAAAAH!
The dead walk! |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 164
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 6:30 pm: | |
Monty, all I can find, and I presume it is also what you are looking at, is an article in the Times of October 3rd which says of Kelly that He added that he had worked pretty constantly for a fruit salesman named Lander for over 12 years. Excuse my ignorance, but where does the Barnett connection come in? |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 351
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 4:47 am: | |
Alan,
Joe worked as a fruit seller on the odd occasion. Its in his statement.
Now if he worked on his own or for a seller I do not know but what if the supplier was Lander.
That then gives us a link with John Kelly and in turn with Kate.
Appprently the slashing on a victims face indicates their attacker knew them.
As you know Kates face was slashed.
Though Im loathed to say it, Did Joe know Kate via his possible dealing with Lander and/or Kelly ?
I cant believe Im promoting this !!!!
It would be interesting if we knew more about Fruiterer Lander.
Monty
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 870
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 5:34 am: | |
G'day,
'The Times' of Wednesday, 3 October 1888, reported that John Kelly said: "I job about the markets now.", (which is what Barnett did), then it said; 'He added that he had worked pretty constantly for a fruit salesman named Lander for over 12 years.' That to me says that he no longer worked for Lander.
I remember reader somewhere else recently that John worked at Spitalfields Markets, and Kate occasionally sold things there too. I'll look for that source.
LEANNE |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Monty,
I am of little brain so please could you explain the link between Landers, Kelly and Barnett and why do you think there is a link.
My brain hurts.  |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 7:13 am: | |
I think it is pretty likely that Joe & Mary knew John & Kate, or at least the men knew each other and the women knew each other, if not only by sight. If Joe was the killer then Kate was probably not just someone JTR happened to come across.
Also Leanne, that remark could also mean that he still works for Lander. Imagine him saying "I have worked pretty constantly for a fruit salesman named Lander." To talk in the third person the "I have" would be turned into "he had". Depends on how you look at it. |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 29
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 6:04 pm: | |
Sarah,
If the tense is to convey a previous action that continues into the present would it not then be "he has been working. . . ." rather than "he had"? |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 5:37 am: | |
Donald,
You may be right and today, yes they would use that, but you can also use the other way round. Also, since when did the reporters of the victorian age get so well educated? |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 358
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 8:52 am: | |
Sarah,
My brain hurts also...but thats cos of a wonder drink called Duff beer !!
OK, it goes like this...
Barnett states he works selling fruit (on the odd occasion) since stopping work at Billingsgate.
John Kelly states that he works (worked, its unimportant which tense. The fact is he knew this man) for a fruit salesman by the name of Lander on and off for 12 years.
John Kelly is (at the time of her murder) Kate Eddowes other half. If Barnett knew/worked with Kelly then he may have known Kate.
Now this raises quite a few possibilities like did Kelly and Joe work for the same Lander? Or did Joe work on a stall that was supplied by Lander who used Kelly as muscle? If so the we have a connection between Joe Barnett and Kate Eddowes.
Kates face was slashed which, apparently, indicates that the killer knew his victim. It is supposed to be an act of de-personalising.
Barnett is a suspect. He was question thoroughly at the time.
Apart from Kelly/Barnett, there is no actual link between any other victim and suspect.
Of course, all this may be total bunkum but if we can establish….
a) Landers existence,
b) Landers occupation,
c) When did Lander employ John Kelly,
d) If Barnett worked for Lander also,
e) Or did Barnett work for someone who used Lander as a supplier.
Then we may have something. That said, I am aware that obviously if a link is established it does not mean that Barnett killed Eddowes.
Hope that made it slightly clearer. If not mail me privately and I’ll go into deeper detail with you.
Cheers,
Monty
|
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 31
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 10:46 am: | |
Sarah,
Since when did reporters today get so well educated? At least back then one of the things anyone in school learned was sequence of tenses -- why even the lowliest pupil at Mr. Valentine's school in Blackheath probably knew his "past from his elbow." Anyway, certainly not worth arguing about lest things get too "in-tense."
Don. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 9:25 am: | |
Monty,
Mmmm the wonders of Duff beer!! 
Thank you for making it clearer. Sorry I have such little brain.
Actually that thing about slashing a victims face if the killer knew them is quite interesting. If Barnett was the killer, then it would explain why (if he DID know her) Kate's face was slashed and why Mary's face was completely destroyed. Although, I know this sounds strange but not all killers would slash their victim's face if they knew them, I presume this was just what happened in lots of cases.
This may be a link then Monty although there were probably loads of fruiterer's in those days I should imagine but it's worth checking it out.
Regards,
Sarah  |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 11:16 am: | |
Don,
 Very good. Just to say that I didn't mean to get into an arguement about it. It's just fact that they weren't edcuated well back then because of lack of money. I could see how what he said could be read differently.
Anyway, Lander.... |
