| Author |
Message |
    
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 946
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 11:26 am: | 
|
Folks...
Just wondering what anyone thought about the red leather cigarette case found on Kate and duly noted at the Inquest.
Of all the 52 items in her possession, this case, in some way, stands out from the other items. Most items were utilitarian and Kate was, from what I have read, a pipe smoker [ two found on her person...]
It may be the only item poor Kate could have used for barter for whatever purpose as no currency was found on her person.
Any thoughts ?
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2938
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Howie
The cigarette case has always worried me too!!!! Maybe, just maybe ,and I KNOW Im not the first to say this it was dropped by her 'attacker' and disappeared into the murk and nastiness...For God's sake our lovely Kate wouldnt have had that!!! after all ,she'd got rid of poor John's boots and practically everything else!!!...bless her!
Suzi |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 949
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Suzi...
If there is any problem [ to me ], its whether it was in her pocket or not. It appears that it was,so perhaps it was hers and not left or dropped by her killer in Mitre Square.
Kate was a smoker for certain. Its not unlikely that she also smoked cigarettes as well...hence the cheap [ according to Melvin Harris ] case...
But pre-rolled cigarettes may have been a bit too expensive [ if in fact they were in the case..]. Remember that she had no currency on her person...
What an utterly tragic situation...the only sellable item other than her body she had may have been this cigarette case.....
I suppose its futile to ask whether anyone other than the late Mr. Harris had an opinion one way or the other regarding the "cheap" in relation to the cost of the case...I don't know whether anyone and even if Harris did see it.
Thanks for the post, Suzi... |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2946
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Howie!
HE He! Kate probably smoked a pipe that's moreorless without a doubt, but as a rollie smoker.... on most occasion!(cept in Company!) see her in a similar vein!!!! Mind you a 'pawnable' cig case surely would have been too much to hang on to...I know I'd have got rid of it!!!! Think the baccy would have been kept in one of her pockets various!!!.....Mind you no baccy was found on the body! Clever girl...praps Mr 'Hand on the Chest'blagged it off of her!
As to Mr Harris Howie......sadly we'll never know!
Suz x |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
If she didn't use it herself, might she have taken the cigarette case as "payment in kind"? She may have struck a deal with an otherwise penniless punter with a view to pawning the item later. Perhaps bartering was an acceptable alternative means of transacting business in a neighbourhood, and at a time, when ready money was such a scarce commodity.
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 742
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Remember, we don't know the condition of this cigarette case. It could have been scuffed, bent, the leather in tatters and so on. Something she had scrounged with little or no pledging worth, but if it still closed had some utilitarian value to hold things. Of course, it might have been fairly new and worth something and obtained . . . well, there is the rub: the ways it came to be in Kate's possession would seem to be limited only by the imagination. Our reach always seems to exceed our grasp in these situations.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2949
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Hi Dan
Theres a lot to be read here I think you and Gareth may be right here something that Kate had picked up 'along the way'.
It is odd though....Kate's deparate belongings bring a tear to the eye and somehow this 'cigarette case' stands out!
There is another thought though, that maybe someone may have given that to Kate on the way back from Kent with an intent to pawn.....again unlikely ....although when she pawned John's boots maybe she was saving the cig case for herself.......for later.OR she may just have found it in the street and picked it up.......LIKELY!
Sadly we'll never know.........for sure!
Suzi |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
G'day,
Has anyone considered that perhaps the cigarette case was bought by Catherine as a gift for John Kelly for returning home late? OK, she was penniless, but she could have bought a second-hand cigarette case from a stall or street-seller with payment from a customer that she serviced before Jack.
LEANNE |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1631
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Hi all
I don't see anything of particular significance in the cigarette case that was on Kate Eddowes' person. More than probably it was just part of the grab bag of odd possessions that she carried round with her. It might be vaguely possible that Jack had given it to her, if Jack was a gift-giver, but more likely perhaps it was just a cigarette case Kate found at some point in her itinerant street wandering.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 978
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Dear C.G.
Perhaps,as well as the cigarette case,the matchbox was a gift to her. Perhaps from someone she met in a taproom [ Eddowes is the only C5 victim of whom we cannot account for if she was in a taproom at all ] who gave them to her as well as some drinks. She didn't have any money or her when she was found in Mitre Square,but she was hugging the pavement, drunk as a skunk, only hours before..Maybe she got her drinks and one or more of these items at that time, when in a local bar...
Getting off the case for a moment and on to this matchbox, its said that Melvin Harris described it as an old beat up one...Did Harris, to your knowledge, ever see it ? Or perhaps,was that a guesstimate.
Thanks C.G.
Leeanne....Good question. Other than the cigarette case and this matchbox [ which I is why I asked Chris what I did...], most of her possessions are really common utilitarian items. Your guess is as good as any,I suppose.... |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
How
Getting off the case for a moment and on to this matchbox, its said that Melvin Harris described it as an old beat up one
Wasn't that the case, not the matchbox?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Getting off the case for a moment and on to this matchbox, its said that Melvin Harris described it as an old beat up one
On second thoughts, having checked the dissertations, did Harris say this, even about the case?
His comment seems to have been more along these lines:
Begg's attempt to reinstate the red leather cigarette case as a possible clue is pretty dismal as well. Paul Feldman's original specious claim involved his belief that the case was an expensive item that just had to be clue left by Maybrick! But the white metal fittings (melchior) betray it as the cheapest of the line. And its cheapness and state of wear was exactly in keeping with police expectations. They were dealing with a pitifully poor woman, wearing very old skirts, and crudely repaired boots and stockings. This cigarette case did not jar in any way. They found it unremarkable, and not worthy of a line of comment. We know of it only as just one item among the many others noted on the police inventory.
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhfutile.html
I don't think there is any claim on Harris's part to have seen it.
Of course, we are treading on Maybrickian ground here, with all the dangers that involves ...
Chris Phillips
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 981
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
My mistake Chris ! Thanks for the correction.
Somehow I wrote down on my little illegible list of notes to ask about Harris and the matchbox.
Harris does appear to be assuming that since the Police didn't comment on the cigarette case that its a "open and shut" case of the case being unmentionable.
Since you are Mr URL of Casebook...could you direct me at your leisure,to a source here that refers to the police or any other person who could actually claim that the cigarette case was:
"And its cheapness and state of wear was exactly in keeping with police expectations."--M.Harris
Because I can't Chris. Its not mentioned in the Ultimate [ by SPE ] under the Eddowes Inquest section.
I'd appreciate it if you could. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
I think Harris was just saying that there was nothing about the cigarette case that was out of keeping with what they would expect among Eddowes's possessions. Or am I misunderstanding?
Chris Phillips
PS "Mr URL"?? Sounds almost as silly as "Mr Poster" ...
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 982
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:52 pm: |
|
Chris...
I understand that Harris was just saying that. The thing I'm interested in is how,if he never saw it,could he make the determination that it had a "cheapness and state of wear". Thats why I wanted to know if there was a reference somewhere that mentions what Harris claims the police felt about the case.
Because,as you can understand or already know, this is a case [ no pun intended ] of someone [ Harris ] making a determination of what condition the case was in without seeing it. Thats not exactly kosher.
The case may well have had melchior fittings,which apparently were used in the less expensive cigarette cases of the day. Good....However...
Inexpensive does not mean "beaten" or "worn". It just means cheap.
Not to appear like I am trying to elevate this case into something more than what it may well have been....a cheap,used cigarette case, it would be nice if there was a reference to the "state of wear" which,until we could locate one,remains to be proven.
The case,Chris,if not in a "state of wear" may well have been in fair condition and even a recent acquisition.
Since Kate had no money on her person,either:
1. She stole,found,or was holding it for someone.
2. She purchased it. For whom, maybe as Leeann has posited, for Kelly? Maybe...but unlikely [ imho]. Her money would more than likely be spent on alcohol or pipe tobacco. But not impossible.
3. Someone gave it to her.
The comment about "Mr. URL' wasn't a dig,Chris. On the contrary,you always provide valuable links to past references and frequently use URL's to guide people to them. Sorry if you were miffed.
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 3:58 am: |
|
I really don't think he was "making a determination" of the case's condition.
I think he was just deducing from the way in which it was listed without any further comment that its characteristics, including its "state of wear", were consistent with what they would have expected of Eddowes's possessions.
If elsewhere he went beyond this, and said what its "state of wear" actually was, it might be a different matter, but as far as I know he didn't.
Chris Phillips
PS I wasn't at all miffed by "Mr URL" - I just thought it had a very comical ring to it.
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 984
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:56 am: |
|
Chris:
Thanks for your follow-up. You may very well be right.
Taking into account that Mrs. Eddowes was a pipe smoker, I'm still curious as to why Harris or in fact, anyone else who has ever commented on the cigarette case being in a state of wear without it being stated in a file or report as being in that condition would do so.
It may be a case of brushing aside this case a little too quickly....just an opinion.
I smoke cigarettes. If I was killed and the police checked my pockets and a pipe was found,without pipe tobacco,and someone mentioned that I was not a pipe smoker afterwards...regardless of the pipe's condition...it would be considered a bit unusual to those who know me.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
Hi Howie,
Had Melvin said something like:
A brand new leather cigarette case would have stuck out like a sore thumb among Eddowes's other possessions, therefore I think we may assume that wasn't the case (!), otherwise the police would have described it thus
I don't think there would be a problem now.
But Melvin was sometimes his own worst enemy by overplaying things to make a point or counter-argument. And in this instance you have every right to ask what he was doing referring to a 'state of wear' that was completely unknown to anyone but the few people who had clapped eyes on it.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
PS Funny Melvin didn't mention the initials FM found on the case.  |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Had Melvin said something like [snip] I don't think there would be a problem now.
There isn't.
Chris Phillips
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 746
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
Howard,
I smoke cigarettes. If I was killed and the police checked my pockets and a pipe was found,without pipe tobacco,and someone mentioned that I was not a pipe smoker afterwards...regardless of the pipe's condition...it would be considered a bit unusual to those who know me.
But Howard, they didn't find cigarettes or a cigarette holder: they found a cigarette case. Were you, a cigarette smoker, to be found dead and among your effects there was a tobacco pouch would be a closer analog. And, like a cigarette case, a tobacco pouch has many uses beyond that for which it is designed.
Moreover, I don't know Katharine Eddowes, you don't know her, no one on these boards knows her so it really is a bit of a stretch for any of us to know if it were at all out of character for her to be found with the case. Probably the only one who could have made that determination was John Kelly and whether he ever remarked upon it we don't know and probably never will.
I wrote earlier that the many ways Katharine Eddowes could have come by that case is limited only by our imagination and that has certainly been borne out.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Howdy Howard,
Pipesmoking and cigarette smoking aren't exclusive; a lot of pipesmokers also smoke cigarettes. These days most of them start out by smoking cigarettes and move to pipe tobacco. I reckon in the 19th century, it would have been the reverse since people were smoking pipes way before there were cigarettes. I don't find the cigarette case to be an unusual item. If it had had gold or silver fittings, that would be something else.
Tobacco use in the 19th century is a pretty interesting subject I would like to learn more about. Pipelore has a history as extensive as the Whitechapel murders. It's a safe bet that most of the people we read about were pipe smokers; I wonder what guys like Abberline, Macnaghten, and Anderson were smoking and what kind of pipes they had. I read last night that Oriental mixtures (which are wonderful) were popular among the higher classes beginnng around 1880 (which I'm not sure I understand because I thought turkish tobacco was first imported due to the Crimean War). Someone like Kate Eddowes might have smoked a Navy Cut that was popular with sailors--the tobacco's pressed into ropes and then sliced into little disks (sailors liked it because it was easier to store). Or maybe she liked flakes, which are similar except they're pressed into cakes and then sliced. Or if she was rolling her own, maybe it was a shag cut, which I understand was common. There's that old Sherlock Holmes story that has him smoking an entire ounce of cheap shag tobacco in one night--that's about ten pipes.
Cheers,
Dave
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:41 pm: |
|
PS Howard. Speaking of what kinds of pipe mixtures Victorians smoked, you might be interested in a story about Aleister Crowley that highly regarded microblender G.L. Pease picked up somewhere (I don't know what his source was). Crowley is said to have smoked straight perique, flavored with rum, in his pipe. Perique is a condiment tobacco, a lot like tabasco/pepper, very potent and only meant to be used in small amounts. I guess Crowley smoking a whole pipe of nothing but perique would be like eating a bowlful of pepper or a big old gob of wasabi.
If the story is true, it reinforces my suspicion that Crowley was a fairly goofy person.
Cheers,
Dave |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 985
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Oy vey,Dave ! That sounds brutal. I'm in pain from thinking about it. Thanks a lot for the information on tobacco..Much appreciated !
Don..good correction. Thats a better analogy.
The fact remains,Don....that there could be a good reason why Harris claimed it was unmentionable, if he never saw it. I opine that it has to do with his unrelenting crusade against the Diary. Regardless of the Diary's veracity,its falsity,whatever.. to claim that the case was used and in a "state of wear" and not having seen it is indicative of someone with an agenda. Whether stated by a great hoax investigator-Melvin Harris or a regular guy like Donald Souden..to make a statement like that about the case deserves re-assessment. I see no reason for it not being brought up.
Caz....I've read both Feldman's and Harrison's books and did not see that reference to an "FM" being written on this case. Is that true or were you kidding? Thank you... |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1419
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 7:09 pm: |
|
How
to claim that the case was used and in a "state of wear" and not having seen it is indicative of someone with an agenda.
But he didn't say "it was in a state of wear", he said "its cheapness and state of wear was exactly in keeping with police expectations".
Of course the implication is that because the police didn't comment on it, it was cheap and old and worn. But the context makes it clear this was only a deduction from the lack of comment.
And on the "FM" - I think I know Caroline Morris well enough to say that that was an attempt at a joke - though obviously an unsuccessful one!
Chris Phillips
|
Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
What a pointless debate. The obvious fact that you are all missing is that Eddowes had just been released from police custody. As a police prisoner all her property would have been logged at Bishopsgate police station and returned on her release. If she had anything on her at the time of her murder, a short while later, that wasn't on her in the police station then it would have aroused suspicion and comment that it wasn't hers and possibly belonged to the killer. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 991
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Stephen...What a pointless debate..
What pointless debate? Its not a debate,rather a question about a declaration by Harris as to the 'state of wear' of the case.
"Eddowes had just been released from police custody.."
She was put in a cell and released when it was determined she had sobered up enough. She was NOT arrested like a criminal would be arrested. Therefore,she probably wasn't searched for weapons or other items like a normal, arrested person would be.
...and if its pointless to you, why bother getting involved ?
(Message edited by howard on September 17, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 749
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
Howard,
The fact remains,Don....
I didn't know I had a dog in this fight. My only contentions have been that a cigarette case has many uses and that we have no way of knowing what was the case's condition. Harris may have had a point about the metal fittings, but unless he was privvy to information that has escaped everyone else his comment about the "state of wear" is a puzzler. Chris's suggestion about the comment is possible, but it was surely an elliptical way for Harris to express a guess. Then again, all seems fair in love, war and the diary debate.
Don, a regular guy.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 992
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
As to Mr. Harris’s claim that the cigarette case was cheap and old, the cheapness is suggested to him by the white metal fittings. The Star on 1 October 1888 referred to ‘an old cigarette case’ among Eddowes’ possessions and this may be Harris’s source. It isn’t the age or the cheapness of the case that initially aroused my curiosity, rather the fact the Eddowes possessed such an item at all....and of course the claim that it was in a state of wear without him seeing it.
No fights...no dogs... Just curiosities.... |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1424
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 4:02 am: |
|
How
For about the sixth time, he didn't claim it was "in a state of wear"!
I'm obviously not getting this across. Maybe it's an American versus English usage thing. I don't know.
One last try. If someone says, "its state of wear was consistent with expectations", that doesn't imply "it was worn and that was consistent with expectations", it implies "the amount of wear on it was consistent with expectations". Logically, the amount of wear could be zero (though I'm sure that's not the conclusion Harris drew!).
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on September 18, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 995
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Dear Chris:
I recognize that what you are saying is how Harris could possibly have meant what he said,as follows...
"the state of wear was consistent with what a case in Eddowes' possession,considering the cheapness [ cost-wise ] of the case, would be..The police felt that it was not mentionable,because the wear of the case was concomitant with the cost of the case.."
Correct,sir?
I still think that if Harris or anyone else did not see this case [ no need to see it for its cost,as it probably, if not definitely, was a cheap case] , it is still not necessarily a given that it was in a state of wear. No one knows why there isn't a mention one way or the other, either that the case was in a state of wear or that it wasn't or even if it warranted some sort of explanation..Thats understood. I know that. Considering the 51 other items...the carnage which Mrs. Eddowes' body had done to it...mentioning the case for its "state of wear" would probably be way down the list of priorities for the authorities at the Inquest to analyze.
I know that this issue about the state of wear may seem a little anal-retentive. There is a good possibility that you,Chris, are correct in how you have interpreted what Melvin Harris intended in that excerpt above. No problem,pal...
But..some things in regard to the WM Case,far larger ones,have been overlooked and possibly downplayed. I'm sure you will agree.
To me, it stood out that Harris mentions, sort of definitively, that the case was in a state of wear in the eyes of the police...thats all.
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1425
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
How
But what I'm trying to get across is that it's not a question of the case being either "in a state of wear" or "not in a state of wear". It's that every object has a state of wear, ranging from totally unworn to very worn indeed. And what Harris was deducing is that its state of wear (whatever that was) must have been consistent with the police's expectation of its state of wear (whatever that was).
I'll just have a go at one more example. Suppose I say, "Owing to his state of health, John Smith hadn't been able to work for 6 months." According to your interpretation, presumably that would mean Smith was "in a state of health" - that is, that he was healthy. But on the contrary, it obviously doesn't mean that - the implication is that he was very unhealthy.
As far as the English goes, a reference to his "state of health" doesn't logically imply he was healthy. And Harris's reference to the "state of wear" of the case doesn't mean he was assuming it was worn.
No doubt his (unstated) conclusion, based on the argument that it must have been in the sort of condition the police would have expected, was that it was pretty worn. But that's a different matter.
Chris Phillips
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 997
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Dear Chris:
I apologize for dragging that out. With the example above I see precisely what you were driving at. Its not a matter of a Brit/Yank misinterpretation...it was me putting too much emphasis on the word "wear". The way you explained it with the other example shows that "state of wear" means general condition,not wear as in worn out to any particular degree..
Again,I am sorry for not picking up on that nuance. I appreciate you taking the time to point it out. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 4:49 am: |
|
How
No need for apologies, of course. (Anyway, Caroline Morris will no doubt be along shortly to insist we can't trust a word Harris says ...)
Incidentally, on a related point, having now read "The True Face ...", I do think your criticism of Harris's reference to the African witch-doctress was more justified. Though I think there were worse things in the book ...
Chris Phillips
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
...Though I think there were worse things in the book ...
That makes two of us,sor. |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Hi All
Isn't it possible that Kate had this cigarette case for some time? No doubt she was a pipe smoker however, she probably smoked whatever she could get her hands on, considering her poor financial situation.
Is it possible that Thomas Conway gave it to her when times may have been better financially for her and Conway.I am not quoting special reports or anything of the sort, however, the cigarette case if given to her by Conway may have meant a great deal to her, a special momemtum, after all she did have his initials tattooed on her person.
Just a possibility I've considered that I of course have nothing to back it up with, however it isn't totally off the wall in my humble opinion.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Folks
This has nothing to do with this thread, however is it just me or are there problems in the casebook . Each time I enter the casebook in the last three days I seem to get almost bumped and there is an indication that a virus may be present.
I am well protected and have not encountered this problem prior to these past few days, but I am almost certain that there is a virus hanging around in here somewhere.
Please advise whether or not any of you have incurred this same problem recently.
thank you
Julie
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Julie
I've encountered various error messages here today.
Chris Phillips
PS And repeated errors trying to post this response!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5015
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
I've had trouble too.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2968
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:52 am: |
|
Hi Julie
I did too took me 20 mins to get onto Casebook said that there 'were too many connections' Oooh er!!!!
Seems ok today tho!!!!!Someones obviously pressed the right button! (technical term there!)
Suzi |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Chris Phillips
Fill me in. Is your response re errors a direct reply to my post? Just curious.
regards
Julie
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1431
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Julie
Yes, it was.
Chris Phillips
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Suzi, Robert
Thanks for responding,
I have not had a problem today, but I sure did for a while.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 149
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Chris Phillips
Are you and I on the same wavelength?
Were you referring to my comments with respect to Eddowes Cigarette Case? If so spit it out, what did you think of my therory?
Or was it in regards to my post re difficulty in getting into casebook.
Awaiting your reply.
regards
Julie
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1432
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Julie
I was referring to the Casebook server problems.
Chris Phillips
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2970
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Er Julie!
Glad you're back online!!!! Worried me first thing on a Monday morning but all seems ok( now as I type!) Right to zzzzzzzzz now ..........Good Luck!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2971
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Julie
As to the ciggy case-------
I have a dark feeling that Kate found it on the street at some point in her chequered career and just pocketed it!!... that would make more sense at the end of the day dont you think........wandering about and finding something like that despite its condition would seem to be the most obvious solution!..pocket it that looks useful...we'll sort that later!!!.....got raddled in the afternoon......forgot it and the rest shall we say is 'history!'.....
Really noone's likely to give the cig case to Kate as a pressie are they??? and if they did I don't think it was IMHO on the day/night of the murder!.... Well if they did she'd have popped it 'soon as' I reckon!!!
Reading back I think IMHO that it was a found object and pocketed for Ron............ (Later on!!!)........Sadly our Ron didn't have a chance!!!!
Suzi |
Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Mr. Brown drunkenness is a criminal offence and ALL prisoners taken into custody had their property taken from them and listed, then returned on release. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2974
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Stephen-
Yep but did they?????? No records of this are there????? I'm sure that if they'd made a record of all Kate's sad belongings, there would have been a police record ,rather than the other post mortem one which in itself is tragic enough....Odd though ..
Mind you ,in 1888 and at a BUSY time maybe they didn't bother with an 'allegedly' regular friend like Kate!!!!! it would maybe have taken as long to take everything out of Kate's pockets and person , and record it as it took Kate to sober up!!!!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2975
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Got it!!!
(At the risk of being hideously flippant and daft!!!)
Lawende was ' A commercial traveller in the cigarette trade'
...may have had the odd case!!!!!
CASE solved!!!!!
Oh well it does us all good to smile at times!!!....odd coincidence(daft!) though!
Suzi |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 152
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Chris P.
Thanks for clarifying same.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 153
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Suzi
Thanks . I am unable to be on each day, I've been so busy with visitors, kids etc.
I am also trying to nurse one of my ferrets back to health, his name is Taz. He's diabetic.
I appreciate your warm welcome.
Regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 154
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Suzi,
Your post is certainly as possible an explanation as any other.
You are right about the gift from Thomas unless he stole it himself and gave it to her as a show of his love. Who knows?
regards
Julie
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Stephen:
You are claiming that Eddowes was arrested.
Are you claiming that all prisoners taken into custody had their property taken from them and listed? This may be the case now, but was it the case in 1888? I doubt it. If being drunk was a criminal offense then surely a charge would have been brought against Eddowes. She would have remained in custody until the following morning and then been brought before the magistrate and fined or sent to prison. But no charge was brought against Eddowes, who seems to have been dumped in a cell more for her own safety than anything else until she had sobered sufficiently to take herself home.
This is similar to another claim about another entity within this Case that I find very puzzling.
Some claim that Stephenson was 'arrested' during the Whitechapel murder skein. Not a chance.
How Brown
Proprietor
www.jtrforums.com
|
Stephen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, "When a prisoner (which Eddowes was) is at the station it is lawful to search him (her), and that any such thing as a knife, matches, poison, or anything which may be evidence with respect to a criminal charge, may be taken from hin (her)..." |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2980
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Stephen!!!!!
Youre right!!!!!! ANYTHING worthy would have been taken from dear Kate,,,,,that worries me...
With the senstional LIST from Kate,most of it is just day to day stuff ,when snail-like Kate carried all of her house and home about her self....A cig case must have been well hidden!.... Or maybe it wasn't there on arrest and only oddly discovered post mortem!
Hmmmm interesting!!!! (old thought but STILL WORTH A LOOK!) Maybe 'Someone 'Dropped it....again unlikely..re the above post a shall we say a 'possibility!'
Suzi
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 750
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 8:33 pm: |
|
In response to a question from a juror at the Eddowes inquest, Constable George Henry Hutt, identified as the "goaler at Bishopsgate-street Police-station," said "Prisoners were not searched who were brought into the station drunk. Handkerchiefs or anything with which they could injure themselvers would be taken from them." And, presumably, returned when the individual was sober enough to leave.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 9:02 pm: |
|
Thanks very much,Donald....much appreciated.
It appears that the PC who peeled Kate off the pavement did her more of a service than for the public.
...and there was no charge issued to Eddowes,who was released from temporary detainment. Hutt would have mentioned if she was arrested for at her inquest and what for.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Er, am I missing something here?
If drunk prisoners were not searched, how could it be ascertained that they had nothing dangerous on their person?
Did Kate perhaps surrender the matches in her tin box, explaining its emptiness (when Jack struck up conversation by asking her for a light, which she could not provide)?
Ignore the bit in brackets - I was just being provoking, as with the FM on the case whose state of wear was, according to Melvin, consistent with police expectations.
Love,
Caz
X |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 757
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Caz,
It would seem that your question really should be directed to Constable Hutt, a suggestion now as empty as the tin match box I realize.
If I might be allowed to do a bit of guessing, though, I would suggest that, at least at the Bishopsgate Station, the attitude toward drunks was rather benign and that they would simply keep them locked up for their own protection until a semblance of sobriety returned.
Hutt's answer, in toto, sounds like a statement of that policy and the business about handkerchiefs sounds more as if were directed toward males, many of whom affected neckerchiefs (often, it would seem red ones!). Something like that around the neck could either be partially swallowed by a drunk or become tangled and choke a wearer who was passed out. As far as anything else, it would seem they were kept under frequent check, if only to get rid of them as soon as possible.
In fact, big city "drunk tanks" operated in this way for manner years.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
