|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:02 pm: |       |
Glenn
valid point, but somehow I've always been convinced that this image of the poor of London going down to Kent for a summer holiday picking hops is a bit of a romantic myth.
I think they dragged themselves down there to the mud and back breaking labour because they had no choice. They weren't students picking grapes in the south of France, they were desperately poor starving folk who needed nourishment.
Perhaps best described as economic slaves.
The reference is most certainly there somewhere, my hapless and hopeless memory seems to tell me that Catherine visited the policeman to obtain cash but then there was a falling out over her drunken behaviour, and this was perhaps five years before her death?
I'll stay on the fence, apart from saying that some women do prostitute themselves for other than money.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 384
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:05 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Interesting theory and good points as well; I too find it questionable that she should arrange a meeting with someone under such circumstances (in order to reveal information) if she knew something -- she must have seen the danger in such a conduct.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 105
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:12 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
I think you're taking one post of Glenn's and making a mountain out of a molehill. If you were to read his posts, and check out all the one's he's agreed with, and disagreed with, I think you'll find that his conclusions are not based solely upon Eddowes being a poor, alcoholic, east end women. Rather, he's included the fact that she was known to be without money but was able to obtain enough drink to get arrested, and drink was a common "payment" of such services (proof, no, suggestive, yes). Two, she's later spotted talking and touching a male who's not her partner and those who spot them get the impression this is a prostitute and client (testimony of one of the men with Lauden indicates he didn't think this was a "couple"). In other words, she was spotted by people who lived in the area and they interpreted her behaviour as that of a prostitute; one might expect them to know what those interactions looked like. Next, she seems to have accomponied this individual into Mitre Square. If she had fled, becomming afraid, she would have been heard by the night watchman. Now, they go to the darkest corner, exactly where a prostitute and a customer would go. They even go at such a time as to maximise the time between police patrols. Finally, she is murdered by a killer who appears to be targeting prostitutes and who seems to first pose as a client.
Now, all of that evidence is indeed suggestive of Eddowes being engaged in prostitution. As a whole it is highly consistent with that notion. Now, if all the evidence you have for her not being a prostitute is the fact that nobody said "Kate was a prostitute", I think you need to beef up your arguement.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 385
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:14 pm: | |
Hi AP,
Well, regarding the hop-picking, I didn't say it was an amusement park ... 
But compared to prostitution (which really didn't pay off that good anyway; these weren't West End whores) and the conditions in East End, I think it was preferable nevertheless. That would be my bid, at least.
It's OK to stay on the fence if you like -- I'll catch you if you fall off...
Interesting thing about the policeman; if you come across the reference on that, let me know. Maybe it is mentioned in Neal Shelden's book as well?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 386
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:18 pm: | |
Jeff!
Thank you!!! 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 913
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:23 pm: | |
Hi all
Perhaps Kate's claim - if she ever made it - to be after the reward was a shrewd move. She may have hoped that people would treat her more nicely, the nicer her prospective finances looked.
At least it might have got her the odd drink at the bar while she explained who her suspect was.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 914
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hi Bob
I feel that, as Glenn, Jeff and others have said, there may be all kinds of different explanations for the various events of Eddowes's last hours, but there comes a time when it makes more sense to come down in favour of the prostitute theory.
Not that it is a certainty, just that it's the more natural explanation.
And why on earth, on a freezing cold night with the Ripper at large, should a penniless Eddowes leave the comparative warmth and security of BPS?
Possible explanations :
She did have some money on her to pay for her lodgings, which Jack later stole.
She had an appointment to meet someone.
She was uncomfortable in all-male BPS.
She was making a last attempt to contact the daughter who was dodging her like the plague.
Kelly would be angry if she wasn't home.
I can't say I find any of these particularly convincing. Isn't it more natural to say that there was still Sunday's food to be provided for, and she was hoping to make some money on a Saturday night before it got too late?
Robert
|
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 106
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 3:16 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
No thanks necessary. I've seen discussions degenerate to far worse starting from far less. Bob has done some great research and has made some significant contributions. And, I think you've done the same. It would be a shame for unnecessary animosity to develop over what basically appears to be a simple misunderstanding that invoked a powerful emotional response. I have no problem, if Bob decides the evidence against Eddowes is "not enough". By police standards, in terms of "convictability", it may not be. The evidence is in "favour" of prostitution, I'm sure just about everyone agrees with that, it's only whether or not it's strong enough to "assert" prostitution as the only viable explanation. Probably not, but it seems pretty close to me. We're talking different criterions here. Remember, if one sets their criterion to be conservative enough, one could even claim that a whole string of prior convictions for prostitution doesn't necessarily mean that Kate was engaged in prostitution that night, or even more conservative one could say "She was falsely convicted, and once that happened the first time, it was always used against her". At some point, we have to draw the line and say that the alternatives are just too implausible. Shift the criterion the other way, which is what Bob appears to have reacted upon, and we get every women in London being a prostitute and every male being Jack. That's usually what lights the fire in people trying to do research about this case. For too long has the criterion been set at "anything goes". I hope that's all that's happened here.
Anyway, enough of that.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
Hi Guys
Eddowes was released from BPS, At one am , could it not be a set up to catch Jack' If Eddowes went to the police during the afternoon of the 29th sept 88, stating that she knew who the killer might be, and she knew the pubs he frequented, might she have not deliberatly set a trap to meet the person she had thought responsible for the other murders ie, NichoLS chapman[ possibly Tabram]. If the police had taken her at her word , they may well have advanced her enough money to frequent those pubs, and would have arranged for her to have been taken into custody, for protection until the hour of meeting with her suspect.
She then could have been released at 1am deliberatly to keep a 1 30am appointment at the square, and followed by a police officer, to observe eddowes, who lost her in doing a two good a job [ note Bleinkensops statement]
She would have met the appointment at the square ] church passage] thinking that she was under obversvation, when infact that was not the case. unfortunetly the rest is history.
This would explain a lot of points albeit specualtion[ my favourite word]
Regards Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 107
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 3:43 pm: | |
Hi,
I would think if such a situation were set up, Eddowes would have had to tell them where the meeting was. If she thinks she's under observation, she knows the police are comming along, so she's not going to try and lose them. Also, if she really thinks she's meeing JtR, again she's not going to try and lose them.
Anyway, I think such an elaborate plane doesn't quite work. Unless Eddowes doesn't tell the police where the meeting was to occur, they would have had police "at the ready" (this meeting had to be arranged by the time she was "arrested"; plenty of time to set up an ambush). If she doesn't tell them, and they had gone through all this trouble of giving her money, etc., they wouldn't have released her. So, I can't see her not saying where the meeting was to be held. Which means the police cannot lose her since they know where she's going. It does nothing for her to lie about where the meeting was to be, and the police aren't going to let her get away with not telling them.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 280
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 4:32 pm: | |
Hi Jeff.
I understand your point,but she could have been met before the meeting place, it seems to me that Eddowes may well have been playing for time , soft spoken , hand on chest etc. and things may have escalated from there.
Look carefully at the medical evidence, you may discover something that shows she did not enter the square on her own accord?.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 387
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 5:33 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Good points, I think.
Explanation nr 4, "She was making a last attempt to contact the daughter who was dodging her like the plague", I think we can rule out, since she appearently were trying to reach the daughter earlier in the afternoon and since Annie had moved without telling Eddowes of her new adress, it is hardly likely that she would make another attempt (she wouldn't know where to find her).
The last one of the explanations I feel is a bit more compelling than the others, but -- as you yourself indicate -- that is not convincing enough either -- I believe the prostitution theory is the more likely one, at least it is the one I think that are the least speculative and constructed.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 108
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 6:52 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I've not seen anything in the medical records to suggest Eddowes was "forced" into Mitre Square. I would think, however, that if such were the case and she actually suspected this person of being the killer of Chapman and Nichols and possibly Tabram, and if she thought the police had followed her (and so she would think they were nearby) she would have put up enough of a fuss that the watchman nearby would have heard it (I forget his name; helped the police when the body was found, his door was open and he was awake at the time; you know, that guy! ha!)
Anyway, perhaps you've seen something in the medical testimony in a way that I've not considered? Do you have some particular medical quote, or finding, in mind that suggests a less voluntary mode of entrance to the square? If so, it would take less time to present your notion for us all to consider than it would take for me to find it I suspect.
Anyway, I'm a bit worried that the explanation is overly complicated and sort of built out of one statement that Eddowes had a suspect. Unfortunately, everyone in the east end probably had their "suspect" (well, not everyone, but "suspects" were a dime a dozen really). So even if Eddowes had claimed to know who the Ripper was, she doesn't appear to have told anyone who that person was (even her boyfriend), there's no record in any police communication to hint at such an elaborate sting was in the works, there's nothing to suggest they had made a "set up" somewhere else (with Eddowes getting "intercepted" before reaching that location), etc. These are all very complicated actions and events that are included in the explanation. Moreover, they are unusual events. I get nervous when an explanation gets complex without some sort of evidence to suggest the complication, that's all. Especially when more mundane explanations can do the job just as well. Fun stuff though.
- Jeff
|
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 102
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 9:01 pm: | |
Glenn, Leanne, If Kate were involved in prostitution, why did she walk all the way from the Flower & Dean / Fashion Street area to the casual ward in Shoe Lane on the nights she didn't have money enough for lodgings, instead of walking down Comercial Street, "working" and returning for the evening? Or, if Kelly didn't know about it, why not do the above and pick any of a number of other doss houses in the area instead of walking so far for a free bed?
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 4:17 am: | |
Hi Jeff,
There is evidence that Eddowes could have been taken to her place of execution, by force , however although it is not plainly visible.
I shall not discuss it on the boards because it will be included in our book, but it is no big secret, for it is there for all to see?.
Richard. |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 58
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 4:42 am: | |
AP
Regarding the policeman, are you maybe getting confused with Liz Stride? At Stride's inquest Mary Malcolm told how her sister Elizabeth Watts had had a baby by a policeman and had left it on her doorstep (which Watts later vehemently denied). In an attempt to clear up the confusion between Watts and Stride the coroner asked Micheal Kidney if Stride had ever had a relationship with a policeman and he said that she told him she used to see a policeman near Hyde Park. I don't remember any mention of Eddowes and a policeman though. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 389
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:14 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
I've never disputed that she went to the casual ward when they were out of money (like for most in similar situations I believe that would be the first choice), but how do you know that's what she did everytime? There could be a hundred explanations. What if all the places in the ward were occupied? I believe that happened once in a while, if you look at the living conditions and the over-crowded demographic situation.
Then I am not really sure what you mean. I am afraid you may have to elaborate that last sentence. Kelly didn't know about "what"? And I believe looking for another doss house would be useless if she didn't have any money...? Sometimes a meaning can become hard to grasp due to language difficulties so I may misunderstand you here (or else I'm just tired).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 390
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:30 am: | |
Richard,
I haven't seen anything in the medical records either to suggest that she would have been taken to Mitre Square by force.
I don't know what to think of these kind of conspiration theories, but there are problematic details. If she was taken there by force, wouldn't they've been seen by more people and wouldn't it be quite risky for the offender?
And if she would have been taken anywhere by force, wouldn't it be smarter to lead her to a more narrow back-alley or -- even better -- into a house or one of the occupied buildings close to the site, instead of an open square? It doesen't add up.
Now you say that you have "evidence" of this, and I totally respect that you want to keep information to yourself that is supposed to appear in your book. But then you shouldn't have mentioned it at all! You can't just pull such a thing out of your hat and then decide to not elaborate it further, mate.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:36 am: | |
G'day,
SHANNON: When Kate and John returned from Kent on Thursday, they had no money so couldn't get a double bed. The pair went to the casual ward at Mile End.
The next evening (Friday), John earned 6d. Kate wanted him to take 4d and pay for a lodging at Flower & Dean Street, while she kept 2d for a bed at the casual ward. He wanted to spend the money on food and said that "Fred" the deputy of Flower & Dean Lodging house, wouldn't turn them away!
Kate insisted that she lodge at the casual ward, and stormed off at 4 p.m. (Friday). John Kelly saw her the next morning at 8 a.m. (Saturday).
Frederick Wilkinson, the deputy of the lodging house, said: "She went out on Friday night and he next saw her in the mortuary." So where did she sleep on Friday night?
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:45 am: | |
Alan
thanks for that, but I'm almost sure the reference was to Eddowes and had been made at the same time as the press or police contacted her daughter for information. If I'm not mistaken it was side by side with the more familiar quote about the daughter moving to avoid her mother's demands for money, and that her mother had visited this - possibly retired - policeman to obtain money.
Heaven now knows where I saw it! |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 393
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 9:14 am: | |
Hi AP,
Yes it's an irritating thing, isn't it? I hate when that happens. Sorry, wish I could help you out -- I still haven't found it myself.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 5:58 am: | |
Glen,As we do not know why the victims were selected,though being in a certain location,unprotected, was certainly part of it,It can never be ascertained that prostitute or not,whether that made a difference.
I am quite aware of the social conditions of Victorian days,for truth to tell it can be argued that they never ended till the start of the second world war,and I am old enough to have had parents and grandparents who lived and survived the late 1800's.
It was the moral aspect of those times that sets it apart,when the church was the forerunner in determining how people should conduct themselves,when any kind of sex outside marriage was considered sinful,and women of the kind that were victims of the ripper were saddled with the classification of whore,whether it was true or not.
It seems that there is an obsession that it can only be prostitution that put four of them on the street the night they were killed,but there is not a shred of proof that is so.Nicholls and Chapman wanted a roof over their heads,not a man between their legs(excuse the description).Had they the money to buy lodgings,they would not have gone out,so yes it was the life style of drink that can be said to have been their downfall.That more than anything else.
AS for hop picking,members of my family went on the yearly trip to the fields.Certainly it was hard work,but it was also looked on as a working holiday.A place to meet old friends,to have a nightly sing around the camp fire,a place of friendship and joviality,and a time to earn money.Quite unlike the descriptions mentioned on these boards.And Eddowes was one of the crowd in her time.
|
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
Regarding the supposed target population. Does anyone know if women held legitimate jobs, such as factories or shops, which caused them either to have to work late at night or go to work in the early morning hours? If so, it seems that there would have been women of the working poor class coming and going during Jack's hunting hours. If that is the case, do we know if there were any assaults upon these women?
Also, I think Harry made an excellent point regarding the similarity in drinking habits. I personally, after a hard night's drinking, would follow anyone who offered me some "hair of the dog that bit me."
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 395
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 9:44 am: | |
Hi Harry,
Although I know from own experiences that it sometimes can take a bit of time before ones post comes through (as an unregistred guest), I just want to point out that -- as been discussed here recently -- there is no proof of anything whatsoever and nothing is absolutely certain. What we're dealing with here is possibilities and what's least or more probable. Nothing else. I don't think believing that the Ripper victims were casual prostitutes is some obsession or reults of a myth, I just think it is a logical interpretation to make that is less speculative and irrational than the opposite, taking many factors in consideration.
"Nicholls and Chapman wanted a roof over their heads,not a man between their legs(excuse the description).Had they the money to buy lodgings,they would not have gone out..."
I have never disputed that. That is my belief as well; I've never said they chose to be prostitutes just for the fun of it! And I don't think all of them did it on a permanent basis; when other alternatives came along they probably jumped at them instead.
Otherwise you're quite right in your description of the social conditions (although it is not the sex outside marriage that makes these women candidates for prostitution, it is a matter of survival and the financial situation, Harry, not mainly a moral issue!) and I agree with you regarding the description of the hop-picking. No arguments there.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
Dear Jeff,
Just read your post. What gets my goat is the fact that people seem to label Eddowes a prostitute on absolutely no evidence at all. I do not expect evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - that would be silly- but what I am asking for is some indication that she was.
All I'm getting from Andersson and the like is 'Well others like her were prostitutes - so that's it!' I'm sorry that's nonsense. There are many indications that she was not - far more than that she was. I am quite willing to list these if needs be, are the others willing to back up their argument in a similar fashion?
Simply saying, well you haven't proved she wasn't isn't good enough. It's not up to me to prove she wasn't - it's up to her accusers to prove ( or at least indicate) she was!
I believe there was a very good reason for Eddowes being where she was and it has nothing to do with prostitution but more to do with blackmail.
Bob Hinton |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
