|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Trev Stone
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 08, 2003 - 7:22 pm: |       |
I have just finished reading J.J.Eddlesons book
"Jack the Ripper,an Encyclopedia". In this exellent book there is a report by Dr Brown, who
gives a description of the body in situ.
In his report,a thimble was next to C.Eddowes finger, As i have over a dozen books on the subject i am amazed i have never heard of this before. Is this an error? |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 97
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 11:44 am: | |
Trev,
No...not an error. Its in quite a few books which repeat Browns report.
Monty
 |
Trev Stone
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 09, 2003 - 4:07 pm: | |
Thanks Monty,
dont you think its strange that she would take her "client" to a dark corner for the purpose of
sex and still wear a thimble!
I think the thimble is "out of place" concidering the circumstances. It does however, fit in with the Maybrick diary.
Trev. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 11:46 am: | |
Was it an occult thimble?
|
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 106
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 12:03 pm: | |
Trev,
Shhhh...dont spoil a good book !!
I have no idea why she would wear a thimble...unless its Jacks 'thing' !!
She might not have been wearing the thimble...how do we know that she was ??
See see, its not always that simple....unless its in the diary.
Out of place or not....it was there.
Monty
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 6:04 pm: | |
Whatho Monty,
How course she would were a thimble for sex. She didn't want to feel a prick in her finger. 
Alright. If this gets deleted, I don't blame you.
Cheers, Mark "Do you want the red book or the blue book?" |
Monty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Monty
Post Number: 114
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 11:45 am: | |
oooo Mark,
I didnt do it Miss Ally, Mark Pardoe did and then ran away !!!
Dont send me to Headmaster Ryder....PLEASE !!!
Monty
 |
Valerie S
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 13, 2003 - 5:04 pm: | |
I think JTR gave most of his victims 'gifts' before killing them, nothing big just a "jolly bonnet" here and there, a few scarfs or neckerchiefs, and maybe even a thimble. I initially thought the brass rings were a "gift", but why would he take them back? He didn't appear to take any of the other "gifts" back. Given the fact that most of these items I think were gifts were related to the textile industry, including the thimble, I wonder if JTR didn't work in the textile industry. Not far fetched considering Spitalfields sprang from the silk industry. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 10:53 pm: | |
Why do people simply assume the thimble belonged to Eddowes?
Saddam
|
Trev Stone
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 7:11 pm: | |
If the thimble wasnt mentioned in police lists or newspaper reports of the time it must have had some significant to the police.
I think people are scared the diary may actually be genuine, and the case finally closed.
The diary was the first book i read ,and have been fascinated about the case ever since. Until i can be shown proof of a forgery i'll keep an open mind.
trev. |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 2:31 pm: | |
Hi, all:
As poor as they were, these women would have carried their worldly possessions round with them, and what could be more practical than a sewing kit? The thimble was probably in a pocket but rolled out when Kate Eddowes was murdered. The thought that she might have been wearing the thimble when she was attacked is, I think, unlikely.
As has been discussed, the thimble was not first mentioned by John J. Eddleston in Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopedia but is noted in the testimony of both a city policeman and Dr. Gordon Brown during the inquest on Catherine Eddowes as reported in the Daily Telegraph. Thus this detail was not held back by the police.
Inspector Collard, of the City Police, said: "The medical gentlemen examined the body, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets."
Dr. Gordon Brown noted: "Both palms were upwards, the fingers slightly bent. A thimble was lying near."
I am not sure that any significance should be given to this thimble. Note that at the Stride inquest, Elizabeth Stride was also stated to have a thimble in her possession. As quoted in the Times account of the inquest, Detective Inspector Edmund Reid, H Division, stated, "In her jacket pocket I found two pocket-handkerchiefs, a thimble, and a piece of wool on a card."
The Woodford Times (Essex) further detailed Stride's possessions in an account of the double murder and specifies that hers was a brass thimble: "In the pocket of the woman's dress were discovered two pocket-handkerchiefs, a gentleman's and a ladies', a brass thimble, and a skein of black darning worsted."
Best regards
Chris George |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 78
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 3:36 am: | |
There were a few other uses for thimbles in the 1800s besides sewing.
Prostitutes used them to tap on windows to announce their presence. "Thimble-knocking"
Thimbles were also used to measure spirits. "just a thimbleful"
Nina  |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 957
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Hi, Nina
Thanks for that tidbit about prostitute's use of thimbles to tap on windows. What you say is borne out by Webster's 1913 Dictionary, which notes that
"Originally thimbles were used solely for pushing a needle through fabric or leather as it was being sewn. However they have since gained many other uses. In the 1800s they were used to measure spirits (hence the phrase 'just a thimbleful'). Women of the night used them in the practice of thimble-knocking where they would tap on a window to announce their presence. Thimble-knocking also refers to the practice of Victorian schoolmistresses who would tap on the heads of unruly pupils with dames thimbles."
Of course, we have no evidence that Liz Stride or Kate Eddowes used their thimbles to tap on windows. My hunch is that the thimbles were used for the purpose we might most expect, that is, sewing. These women were, after all, street prostitutes who picked up their clientele in the streets of the East End rather than called round to customers' houses.
All the best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 223
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 7:54 pm: | |
Chris,
But the thimble was found just next to her right hand. Likely, she was holding it. Do you believe she was sewing? I think the 'thimble knocking' idea is a real possibility. Great work, Nina!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 437
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 9:19 pm: | |
Nina, Chris, and Tom
The thimble knocking is very interesting--I've never heard of that. But a couple of items aren't accounted for: besides the thimble, we've also got several loose buttons, and of course the tin containing the two pawntickets. I'm leaning towards the idea that the thimble and buttons are incidental to the pawntickets (the basic idea is that Eddowes was in the Square to get money to redeem one of those tickets, probably the one for the shirt, which was maybe redeemable Aug 31-Sept 30). Ever reach into a full pocket to get something and come up with the odd coin or two? I think that's what we're seeing with the thimble and buttons.
Just some speculation, but I think it's consistent with the crime scene.
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 966
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Hi Tom and David
Thank you for your points of view. I think it probable that these items became scattered on the pavement when the Ripper went through Kate Eddowes' pockets. However, Tom, you bring up an interesting point when you say that the thimble was found near her right hand. However, where do you get that information? I quote Inspector Collard, of the City Police above who stated at the Eddowes inquest: "in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets."
If Eddowes was using the thimble for "thimble knocking" on windows in Mitre Square this conjures up interesting ideas about she was trying to knock up (pun meant): possibly the married Police Constable Richard Pearse, 922, who lived at 3 Mitre Square, or the nightwatchman George Morris at Kearley and Tonge's warehouse.  Sheer light-hearted speculation of course. . . I think it more likely that she picked up her customer(s) in a neighboring thoroughfare such as Duke Street, and took them into the square.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 12:04 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
Fair enough, my friend! But see what Dr. Brown has to say about the buttons being in the clotted blood. This is a minute point since we can see that the clotted blood had pooled out to the left of Eddowes, but Brown also says the buttons weren't found until the body was moved. That suggests to me that they were underneath Eddowes, and that they hit the ground before she did. Also keep in mind the strange welt on Kate's left hand (the side where all these items were found)--"recent and red."
Perhaps there was some kind of brief struggle after all, despite the appearance of her clothing?
Just a thought,
Dave
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Wherever the thimble was found it was removed from Eddowes pocket, there is also evidence that JTR rifled the pockets of Annie Chapman.
Now both Eddowes and Chapman had their pockets searched.
Was JTR looking for something in particular?
Or was he just curious?
Regards Cludgy |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3123
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
Given that Kelly had undressed, would he have searched her clothes? I feel that if he did, we'd have heard of blood smears on the clothes (because his hands would have been bloody). Since we haven't heard of any smears on the clothes, I suspect he never searched her pockets.
He must have had the sense to wipe his hands on the sheets or something before he left, though, because Bowyer doesn't mention the door handle having blood on it.
Robert |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:14 am: | |
Hi Robert
Sorry I am not saying that the Ripper searched Kelly who, as you correctly said, had undressed before she was murdered. It just seems likely given the position of possessions near some of the outside victims that he did go through their pockets, perhaps to take back the money he had given them, or for some other reason.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 228
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:21 am: | |
Chris George writes: Tom, you bring up an interesting point when you say that the thimble was found near her right hand. However, where do you get that information?
Tom replies: From Frederick Gordon Brown at the inquest (Times): 'The body was on its back - the head turned to left shoulder - the arms by the side of the body as if they had fallen there, both palms upwards - the fingers slightly bent, a thimble was lying off the finger on the right side.'
Chris writes: I quote Inspector Collard, of the City Police above who stated at the Eddowes inquest: "in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets."
Tom replies: I believe you're quoting from the Daily Telegraph's coverage of the inquest. They omitted this detail of Brown's (which is odd, because often the Telegraph was richer in detail than the Times). They both quote Collard about the same. It should be noted that Brown performed his on-site examination before Sergeant Jones picked up the items and handed them to Collard. Brown could have relocated the thimble, or either Jones or Collard could have been mistaken in their reporting of it's location.
As for the buttons and tin box, they could easily have fallen from Eddowes pockets when she was turned on her left side by the Ripper. The thimble's location cannot be explained in such a way.
Robert,
Kelly's clothes were found folded on a chair. No blood stains mentioned. What I'm curious about is whether there was a red handerchief discovered in her pockets. If so, we could more easily forgive Abberline for taking Hutchinson's odd description seriously.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 439
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:55 am: | |
Tom,
"when she was turned on her left side by the Ripper."
I'll bite-why do you think this happened?
Rereading Brown's testimony last night, I now agree about the thimble--it does sound like it slipped off her finger.
Cheers,
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3125
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 4:19 am: | |
Hi all
Chris - agreed.
Tom, I agree the presence of a red hanky would have tended to confirm GH's statement. Another thing would have been if the police had found a generous tip, of the kind only a well-to-do client would have left - say, a half crown coin as opposed to a collection of pennies (which would have represented the earnings from several poorer customers).
We'd still have Bob Hinton's question, how could GH have seen that the hanky was red, at that distance and in that light.
I used to wonder whether Jack put Kate off her guard, by asking her to sew on a button for him. After all, she had her hand on his chest as if inspecting his buttons. But I hasten to add that this seems very unlikely, as she'd hardly have retired to the darkest corner of the square to do the sewing, which means that he'd have had to collar her and drag her there, with the thimble staying on her finger right up until he got her to the murder corner, which is far-fetched.
Robert |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 968
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 11:42 am: | |
Hi Tom, David, and Robert et al.
First, Tom, I think what you have quoted shows the pitfalls in how to read official reports.
Tom, I had asked you how you knew that the thimble was found by Eddowes' right hand, and I quoted you Inspector Collard's testimony that a number of objects were found on the victim's left side, including the thimble.
You have interpreted Frederick Gordon Brown's testimony at the inquest (per The Times) to mean that the thimble was by Eddowes right hand: "The body was on its back - the head turned to left shoulder - the arms by the side of the body as if they had fallen there, both palms upwards - the fingers slightly bent, a thimble was lying off the finger on the right side.'
However, Tom, look at what Brown is actually saying, that both palms are upward. He doesn't say which of the two hands the thimble was next to, only that "a thimble was lying off the finger on the right side." As I interpret what Brown means, the thimble was on the right side of the left hand not on the right side of the victim. In other words, the objects were on Eddowes' left hand side, as Collard says, with the thimble to the right of her left hand. Comprendé?
Robert, I might be wrong but I think sewing was the furthest activity from the action the couple negotiated to do when they mutually agreed to go into the square together. At least this is the first time I have ever heard it referred to as sewing! 
In any case, if sewing was the object of the couple, it would appear significant that no needle was recovered actually in the square. Note that among her possessions, and, we may summize, in a pocket was "1 piece red flannel with pins and needles", while the other major sewing-related items were "several buttons and a thimble" found on the ground to the right of her left hand, if I am correct in my interpretation as explained to Tom.
All the best
Chris George
(Message edited by chrisg on October 01, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3130
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:05 pm: | |
Hi Chris
I wasn't saying that they went into the Square to sew, only saying that I once wondered if Jack had distracted Eddowes by asking her to sew on a button, in order to gain the maximum surprise for his attack. And I then said that the whole thing was far-fetched.
i wish I hadn't mentioned it now. 
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 440
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:25 pm: | |
Hi, Chris, Robert, Tom
Thanks for highlighting this, Chris--there's an inconsistency between Collard and Brown I hadn't noticed before. See Brown's testimony on p. 247 of Ultimate Companion. "A thimble was lying on the ground near the right hand."
Nobody has addressed my idea that the buttons, not seen until the body was moved, were underneath it. This a point worth considering.
There's a big difference between the Chapman and Eddowes crime scenes. With Chapman, items are obviously arranged at the victim's feet--not so with Eddowes. As far as I see, no one connected with the investigation says anything about Kate's items being arranged. Dispersal sounds like it's random--dropped.
I'm not married to the idea, just testing it out.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3132
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hi Dave
Good point about the buttons, though it's possible they were a bit late searching the clotted blood, waiting until the body was removed. After all, Abberline apparently waited before going through Kelly's fire ashes, and the Mitre Square investigators nearly lost a piece of Kate's ear.
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 441
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Thanks, Robert. Valid point about the ear, I'd thought about that too. Once they saw that the ear had been cut, you'd think they'd have wondered what had happened to the rest of it. And the buttons were small, and most were black to boot--I can see how they might get overlooked.
But consider this: they did make note of the state of the blood and how it lay in relation to the body; this was done while the body was still there, so they didn't leave it for the last thing. We've got the crime scene sketch showing showing that they were looking.
Cheers,
Dave |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 969
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
Hi David
Thanks for locating the reference to Brown's testimony in The Ultimate which specifies that the thimble was by Eddowes' right hand.
As for this business of whether Chapman's belongings were "arranged" by the victim's feet, have we found any contemporary word of any authority (police or doctor, etc) saying they were "arranged" or is it a press characterization, or was the term actually first used by someone such as Stephen Knight?
That is, I know it is often said the items were "arranged" by Chapman's feet but were they really?
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
Chris, now that hurts that you think I'd go around quoting Stephen Knight! You must have a low opinion of me, indeed Of course I'm looking at contemporary sources, namely the inquest testimony of Dr. Phillips:
"He searched the yard, and in doing so found a small piece of coarse muslin and a pocket comb in a paper case lying at the feet of the woman near the paling; and they apparently had been placed there in order or arranged there." This is from the Times report 14 Sept 1888, in Ultimate Companion, pg. 96. Also see the Daily Telegraph: "I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there."
However, I've just noticed that Inspector Chandler says on pg. 93 that these items were not found until after the body was moved. In the Daily Telegraph version, he says he's the one who found these items and that they were near the feet of the victim. Chandler says nothing about arrangement.
Interesting inconsistency--Phillips found the items and they was an order to them. Chandler found them and apparently doesn't notice any design.
Cheers,
Dave |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 970
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
Hi David
Thanks. No I am not trying to paint you with the same brush as Stephen Knight, I hope. Just trying to double-check, and it sounds as if you have cited the first verifiable mention of "arranged" possessions, by Dr. Phillips, one of the first official witnesses on the murder scene, which is important to know. Many thanks.
All my best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on October 01, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 443
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
No worries Chris--I was joking about Stephen Knight. We are friends having a discussion. It's always good to double check, and triple check. I'd missed that part about Chandler.
Cheers,
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3133
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 3:46 pm: | |
Hi Dave
Re the idea of some buttons being under the body, indicating a brief struggle :
I'm not sure if the bruise on the hand was necessarily made by Jack, since Kate had been taken off to BPS earlier in the evening, and I don't suppose the police were too gentle about it. Of course, it could have been Jack, but Kate was obviously fairly sober (although hungover) when she was killed, and yet no one heard a cry or a sound of a struggle.
Suppose Jack did cause Kate to lose some buttons, and then laid her down on the pavement, on top of the buttons. It's a bit of a coincidence that he deposits her just where there were some buttons.
I think the disposition of the buttons is rather odd. These infernal things roll terribly - at least they do when they come off my shirts - and yet they seem to have been grouped together fairly closely. It's almost as if he was being gentle or calm or careful.
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 444
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 4:43 pm: | |
Hi, Robert
Well, I don't know about the struggle, that's a great point about the police and the hand mark. But as far as nobody hearing anything, we've got Morris, who's near a partially-opened door sweeping. If we go by what Morris heard, then Kate must have floated down from the sky like a feather He hears nothing--I can only imagine that Morris was engaged in a frenzy of sweeping.
Good point about the grouping of the buttons, I'll have to think on that. The mustard tin doesn't seem to have been in the blood with them. I don't think it's odd that she should have dropped the buttons and tin and then happened to have been laid on top of the buttons, though (if they were under her at all).
But I'm not arguing so much for a struggle as I'm trying to decide why Eddowes doesn't call it a night after she's released from Bishopsgate. I think she was in Mitre Square to get money to redeem one of those tickets--you know Kelly must have been cheesed off with her not showing up that afternoon. She thinks so herself. We know because she says so to Hutt. She is, after all, spectacularly late. So she decides Kelly won't be half so irritated if she shows up with a gift. I plump for the shirt because I think the ticket might have been due the same day--Sept. 30th. 30 days from Aug. 31st. I don't know much about pawnshop practices, though.
What I don't believe is that Eddowes is in Mitre Square for doss money--Cooney's deputy lodger Wilkinson had a policy of extending credit to regulars. As a regular for seven years, she would've known about it, so I don't think she's particularly concerned about rent. John Kelly seems to have been broke that Saturday, but he's staying there, taking his choice of single or double.
Just a scenario, but this is why I think she might have dropped this stuff herself and why when I read about the mustard tin in particular, I don't see the Ripper at work, I see Eddowes.
I will think some more on your reasonable points though, Robert! They're good ones.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 229
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 8:17 pm: | |
Chris George writes:First, Tom, I think what you have quoted shows the pitfalls in how to read official reports.
Tom replies: Please, Chris, in your infinite wisdom, do teach me how to read inquest evidence and avoid such “pitfalls”.
Chris writes: Tom, I had asked you how you knew that the thimble was found by Eddowes' right hand, and I quoted you Inspector Collard's testimony that a number of objects were found on the victim's left side, including the thimble.
Tom replies: True…you quoted Collard (I was already familiar with his statement), asked me why I thought the thimble was off the finger on the right hand, and I answered; though, apparently, not in near enough detail.
Chris writes: You have interpreted Frederick Gordon Brown's testimony at the inquest (per The Times) to mean that the thimble was by Eddowes right hand: "The body was on its back - the head turned to left shoulder - the arms by the side of the body as if they had fallen there, both palms upwards - the fingers slightly bent, a thimble was lying off the finger on the right side.'
Tom replies: Yes, I have. In fact, I'm rather certain on the point that Brown means the right hand. Keep reading, but beware of pitfalls.
Chris writes: However, Tom, look at what Brown is actually saying, that both palms are upward. He doesn't say which of the two hands the thimble was next to, only that "a thimble was lying off the finger on the right side." As I interpret what Brown means, the thimble was on the right side of the left hand not on the right side of the victim. In other words, the objects were on Eddowes' left hand side, as Collard says, with the thimble to the right of her left hand. Comprendé?
Tom replies: First, allow me to correct a significant error I made in my post yesterday while hurridly quoting from my notes. I stated I was quoting from the Times, but I did not. I quoted from Brown's signed inquest statement which, to me, says the same thing. But then, my research is shoddy. I did look at what Brown was actually saying. You’re correct in emphasizing that both palms were up. Now, Chris, form with me a mental picture of Eddowes lying on her back with both palms up and fingers slightly bent, or just take a look at Brown’s on-scene illustration. I think we’ll both agree that the thimble must have been found to the right of one of Eddowes’ forefingers (as opposed to a pinky or thumb). Well, if it were found to the right of a forefinger, it would had to have been the right hand. When facing palms up, the right of the left forefinger is consumed by the hand itself (as is the left side of the right forefinger) – the thimble could only have been to the left of the finger or in front of it, or under the hand. But that’s not what Brown said. He said it was to the right of the finger, and this could only apply to the right hand. It reads confusing, I’m sure, but it’s not. Want more? Okay, let's look at what the Times actually did report Brown as having said - "A thimble was lying on the ground near the right hand". So, there it is. Right hand. No need to get terse with me.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 230
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
David,
I only now noticed you fished out Brown's quote from the Times, and that I was being redundant. I suppose Chris' response got me a bit fired up.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 972
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Hi Tom
Fine enough. Thanks for your riposte. You were correct and I was interpreting things wrongly. I do think we sometimes encounter pitfalls in not understanding the viewpoint of the writer in some of these reports but in this case obviously you had it right and I had it wrong.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 232
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 10:49 pm: | |
Okay, but what's a 'riposte'? If that's a real word, you made a punny, because it starts with 'rip'.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3138
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
Hi Dave
You could be right there about Eddowes trying to raise money as a peace offering to Kelly. After all, she'd told him she was going to her daughter - whether she actually did intend to see her is another matter - but that's what she told Kelly. if she'd turned up both late and penniless, he'd have assumed that her daughter did give her some money, and she'd blown the lot on herself in the pub.
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Hi, Robert
I kind of speculate that Kelly wouldn't have put up a fuss for too long or done anything physical--my impression is that, as she's leaving Bishopsgate, she doesn't act like someone marching off to a beating. She doesn't seem worried about her safety, but you know, it doesn't hurt to grease the wheels.
Kelly might have been upset she didn't take him along Although I think he indulged as well, I think he was probably embarrassed about the drinking--he told the Star he thought Kate's absence was because he thought she was spending the night with Annie, when we know from his own inquest testimony (supported by Wilkinson) that he knew perfectly well she had been picked up on a public drunk. John Kelly's an interesting figure, mostly because of what he doesn't say. I don't think there's anything sinister about him, though.
Cheers,
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3140
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
No, Dave, nothing sinister. Every now and again I wonder whether Eddowes (who is supposed to have slept in McCarthy's shed at least once) was adopting the persona of the Mary Kelly when she gave that false name to the police - in which case, the beating would have been the kind of thing Barnett may have dished out to Mary. But there's no evidence that Barnett ever raised his hand to her.
She may have gone to the Square to raise some money. She may even have gone in that direction to retrieve something she'd dropped? Maybe she lost a pawn ticket when drunk, and managed to find it again - Kelly would have been annoyed if she turned up without the ticket.
Dave, could you explain what you think the sequence of events might have been i.e. going back, searching through her pockets for the ticket...how do you think it might have happened?
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Hi, Robert
Here's more than what you probably wanted to hear from me
Eddowes in the shed, who can say if it happened? For a long time I used to discount that story as a case of mistaken identity. And we have a press account of a misidentification of Eddowes' body, in which there was apparently another person who bore some similarity to Eddowes, right down to the "T.C." tattoo. That's assuming the story's accurate, and the woman making the identification was being honest. So when other unfortunates talk about Eddowes occupying that shed sometimes, maybe they're remembering someone else.
John Kelly has her staying at Mile End the Friday night before her death, where you know they put people to work in exchange for a bed. The regime at Mile End was supposed to be more relaxed than other workhouses, which is why Eddowes favored it, but basically you slept and then they put you to work in the morning. Yet Eddowes turns up at Cooney's early--eight o'clock--when she probably should have still been working. One juror even remarked that her early arrival was strange. However, there's a possible explanation. Eddowes could have claimed she had gainful employment for the day and so got out. That was also policy for some workhouses--they'd let you go if you had a job, although I don't know if that was the policy at Mile End. Another explanation is that Eddowes never went to Mile End at all, and just said she did (as far as I know her presence there isn't corroborated). It could be that she spent Friday night much the same as she did Saturday--on the street, perhaps taking advantage of a place like the shed.
Eddowes use of the name "Mary Ann Kelly": a lot of people think of Mary Kelly when they hear about this, but what gets lost sometimes is that John Kelly's ex-wife was named Mary Ann. And at Cooney's, I think I've seen something about a Mary Ann Kelly dying there (no way to tell if that's the ex, but I think it's interesting that they all could have been uneasily co-habiting). I can't remember where I saw that account of Mary Ann Kelly at Cooney's, I believe this might have been part of Neal Stubbings's research that he posted here at Casebook? In any event, during their seven years together, Kate would have heard all about John Kelly's ex-wife, just as he heard all about Thomas Conway.
So when Eddowes gets arrested and gives that name, I kind of smile because I think she's having a dig at her boyfriend's ex, running her name in the mud. She seems to have been using it as a matter of course, since that's the name Kelly's boots are pawned in. It's been said that Eddowes couldn't have been a prostitute because there's no record of her arrest, but I wonder if we shouldn't be looking for Mary Ann Kelly. Of course, it's a common name and there'd be no way to tell if it was her. Anyway, we have a solid connection between Eddowes and her pseudonym that's unrelated to Mary Jane Kelly.
Dave, could you explain what you think the sequence of events might have been i.e. going back, searching through her pockets for the ticket...how do you think it might have happened?
Okay, here’s some speculation; I don't insist I'm right. So we have Kate leaving BPS, and she’s realized how she’s stood up John Kelly and how he’s probably not going to be happy with her; it’s very clear that this is what she believes the situation is from her exchange with Hutt. At some point she intends to return “home” which is unquestionably Cooney’s. As a regular, she does not necessarily have to have any money at all to stay there, given the deputy lodger’s testimony. That’s why I believe Kate was not looking for doss money. Of course, she could be looking for drinking or food money. However, since we know Kate apparently has Kelly on her mind, I’m leaning towards the redemption of one of those pawntickets. As I posted earlier, it’s possible that the last possible day to redeem the “Emily Burrill” ticket dated August 31st was Sept. 30th—the very day of Kate’s murder. I don’t know that was the case, not having read up on Victorian pawnshops, but I’m tentatively advancing that tickets were redeemable for a period of thirty days (which I think is the current practice). I believe that having now slept for a few hours, Kate’s achieved a second wind and decided she might be able to cool down the heat by bringing home a shirt for Kelly, or bringing home the money for it, returning to Cooney's early Sunday morning just as she had Saturday morning. She only needs to pull several johns to get enough money. It just happens that the Ripper is the first.
My scenario is that Kate could have been very chatty with the Ripper, something along the lines of “Guess where I just came from!” and she’s laughing about just having been in jail and now here she is, right back on the street. I think she told him the all about getting drunk, being locked up. Perhaps some kind of sob story about being broke and how she’s had to pawn some items. And I think it’s her personality that she’s about to show or has shown these tickets to the Ripper. You might think this weak, but I think that when she dug around for the mustard tin, those buttons came out like so much loose change. Perhaps it was when she was occupied with these items is when he chose to strike. I don’t think she ever got to the point of assuming any type of sexual position, although I think that was probably the plan of even venturing into Mitre Square in the first place, which had a certain reputation that’s talked about in the contemporary press. Anyway, she's attacked, drops the buttons and mustard tin from her left hand. The Ripper lays her down, possibly on top of the buttons. The mustard tin falls nearby. The thimble apparently falls off her finger as the Ripper lays her down or perhaps moves her arm. The Ripper proceeds with cutting Kate's throat and the mutilations and securing half the kidney and uterus. He never pays any attention at all to her belongings. He doesn't have time. By the time he's near finishing, he hears Watkins returning, takes half the apron to clean what blood and feces has gotten on his hands and/or knife, and he's out of there.
As I write, I know it's not perfect, but that's something how I think it could have gone. I'd like to read up on Chapman a bit, since her possessions are also out and about at the scene, and do some comparison.
I tried to keep it simple. One thing that steers me is that the Ripper must have been crushed for time, very crushed--that's what I think the apron in Goulston Street tells us. What I do not think happened is that the Ripper replaced any items he came across, i.e. put them back in her pocket. He didn't have the time.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
Two theories
1) the Mary Ann Kelly who was Eddowes boyfriend's ex was one in the same as MJK who was the last victim. This makes Kelly a prime suspect.
2) Eddowes pulled out the tin to get the tickets because the Ripper was actually the pawnshop owner. Remember she said she knew who the Ripper was. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Hi, Diana
Someone actually wrote a book with John Kelly as a suspect. I haven't read it. Frederick Wilkinson confirmed that Kelly was at Cooney's the whole night. Press accounts stiffly mention that Kelly was genuinely grief-stricken when he learned of Kate's murder. "Much affected" as they say.
Kate knowing who the Ripper was is an intriguing story. However, if she really did say that, it might just be an example of her sense of humor. Or maybe she was something like us, reading accounts of the murders and forming theories. One problem is that Kate wasn't even in London for the length of the Whitechapel hysteria. She was in Kent, so I'm not sure how she could have come across some kind of inside information. You'd also think her companion during that time, John Kelly, would have known about this, but he doesn't seem to have mentioned it.
Cheers,
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3141
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 5:44 pm: | |
Hi Dave
Thanks for that very interesting scenario.
Here's four possibilities (there's probably 20,000,000 others too!) :
Kate shows Jack the tickets, at which point he strikes, by punching her to stun her. Kate flies backwards and the tin probably ends up some distance away - whereas it seems to have been found close by. So this possibility seems unlikely.
Kate shows Jack the tickets, at which point he strikes, by gripping her round the throat. I guess her hands would have come up to grab his, and she'd have dropped the tin. It's possible that it didn't roll, or at least didn't roll very far. So this possibility seems possible. 
Kate doesn't show Jack the tickets. On the contrary, it's Jack who pulls the tin from her pocket, but just as he begins searching her, he hears Morris's door opening and he makes off. I think here we have to decide : would the police have failed to mention it if the tin had blood and faeces on it? If it didn't have blood and faeces on it, then either Jack never touched it (your suggestion) or for some reason he started searching her pockets, then gave up and switched to mutilating - which is far-fetched. If we feel that the police would have mentioned it if the tin had blood and faeces on it, then it suggests that the tin was clean, and therefore it was Kate who pulled out the tin, and not Jack. I can't make up my mind what the police would have said or not said, or whether it's possible to read anything into the absence of any mention of the tin being soiled.
Fourth possibility is Kate doesn't show Jack the tickets. When Jack attacks, he puts his hands round her throat. Kate, being quite sharp in the brain department, reaches into her pocket with one of her hands, trying to pull out the table knife. She only has time to spill the tin and the buttons before losing consciousness.
That's a lot of typing with one finger so I'm off for a cup of tea!
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 449
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 6:13 pm: | |
Hi, Robert
As far as I know, there's no mention of blood on the mustard tin or the thimble. I think they'd have said. The tin seems to be off to Kate's left, between her and the wall.
One problem is that I don't think there was any blood on Chapman's things either. In that case, it does seem that the Ripper handled victim belongings, if they were indeed "arranged". I dunno--maybe my idea is wrong. More reading is called for on my part!
Perhaps it's time I should break out the GSG, eh? The lenses have gotten so big that the Federal Highway Authority has required me to equip them with windshield wipers to wipe away any troublesome common sense that might speak out against my scenario!
Cheers,
Dave |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 974
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
Hi David
Are you sure you are not thinking of the Tully book about James Kelly? If so that wasn't the same Kelly who was with Kate Eddowes.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3142
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 6:46 pm: | |
Hi Dave
I think there's a lot to be said for your scenario. I don't think the Hanbury St business is quite the same thing, because it's possible to imagine him wiping his hands on the dress before handling the objects - maybe he'd have dried the blood on his hands sufficiently to not leave much of it on the objects. But we know that his hands were soiled when he left the Square (unless it was solely his knife that he wanted to wipe on the apron, which seems unlikely). If his hands were soiled, and the tin was clean, then that seems to suggest he didn't touch it. In which case, Kate would have got it out, I suppose.
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 451
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 6:59 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
Thanks for asking about that book, because now I can't find it. It's not Tully's book I'm thinking of. I'll be damned if I can find it now. Maybe I'm thinking about "Jimmy Kelly's Year of Ripper Murders", also about James Kelly.
I could have sworn someone did a book naming John Kelly, though. That's why it stuck out in my mind because I have an interest in Eddowes and John Kelly.
Thanks very much Robert--I need to read the accounts of Chapman's inquest again, it's been awhile and it's appropriate to do some comparison and contrasting between the two crime scenes. I don't remember if the front of Chapman's dress was bloody or not--I remember there was a stink about her clothing. The front side of Eddowes's clothing I know was clear of blood.
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on October 02, 2004) |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 7:18 am: | |
Hi all
Read your theories on the timble with some interest. Have reasons to beleive it has some significance. What I know is that we have very lttle knowledge of street culture at the time. Recently was involved in a discussion about the red hankycheif and whether it could have had some contraceptive significance.
But the timble? Could it have been used for measuring? Surely not for measuring gin. Far to small. But what if it were used for messuring other substances. Ludenum, stricnine or perhaps Arsinic.
There are many different drugs combined on the street today to produce different highs and effects. Campainge and charlie, Amol and speed, GBH and alchohol (very dangerous unless exact amounts) Is it possible that Arsnic mixed in the correct amounts with alcohol would create an instant high to increase sexual pleasure?
OK there was little alcohol found in Kates system but she had been drinking all day, is it possible she was mixing other substances?
Afraid I know very little about the effects of these substances but a timble would seem to be a useful messuring tool for a strong substance like GBH today. Could it have been used to cobine poisons then?
Kate walked in the opersite direction from her lodgings that night, the pubs were closed. Could she have been after some other substance to pick up her high? or was she just after money and some quick tricks? Some evidance exists that Kate was not a woman of the street (which I dont buy) but she had just returned from hop picking so she did make money in other ways. She had aquired money that day to get drunk but not from her daughter. Had she met someone who had given her money? Was there a black economy for poisons as there is today or would they all have been available over the counter?
But the timble could it have had another significance. Was she meeting a punter who new about or used piosons to get a high? Would be interested to know if anybody knows about arsnic use and whether a timble would be a useful measurement? Just running ideas around my head really.
Jeff. Please excuse my dyslexic spelling |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
