|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 1:32 am: |       |
Well, "always doublecheck the source" is very good advice. One of Eddowes's pockets was blood stained, although I'm not clear if this is from blood having soaked through the undergarments or from the Ripper having touched it. The strings of all the pockets seemed to have been cut as well, so I guess I can't rule out the Ripper's handling of some of Eddowes's things after all. I thought I had perhaps gained some insight into one of the victims.
I don't have a good handle on these pockets--they sound like bags attached to the clothing, extra pockets? Chapman had one as well, Eddowes had several.
(Message edited by oberlin on October 03, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3144
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 4:53 am: | |
Hi Dave
Yes, the pockets and strings business is a puzzle. Of course, he could have given her fourpence, then rifled her pockets to retrieve it. But, like you, I more and more feel that he just wouldn't have had the time to do this. Those big pennies would have gone straight to the bottom of a pocket, anyway.
If the pockets were dangling from strings, then why didn't he simply cut the strings and pocket the pockets? And why didn't they fall on the ground when she was taken to the mortuary? But if the strings were devices for keeping the pockets closed, isn't that very cumbersome? Wouldn't buttons have been better?
I wish someone would draw a map of Kate's clothing, because every time I read about petticoats and pockets my mind goes a blank.
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 6:15 am: | |
Hi Robert
I think these pockets must have been little pocket purses small enough to fit into a regular pocket, so I don't guess they were attached to her clothes dangling by the strings like I speculated earlier.
Kate would have used them to compartmentalize some of these different items she had on her.
Cheers,
Dave
PS So if the Ripper removed one of Kate's pockets, which contained the mustard tin and buttons, why replace it back into her clothing? I don't know.
(Message edited by oberlin on October 03, 2004) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3150
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
It's got me stumped, Dave. Looks like I'll have to take a serious interest in Victorian clothes. But I'm not looking forward to it.
Robert |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
David O' Flaherty wrote.
"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"
Big difference?
I think the actions of the killer, searching Eddowes, and Chapmans pockets, are most decidedly linked, whether he arranged the items or not.
One of the motives for rifling the pockets could be that the killer was a habitual thief, for even the lowliest of victims, would have their pockets searched by this type of individual.
Also, who's to say Eddowes belongings wern't arranged next to her body. They could have been disturbed by the feet of the constables who first attended the crime scene.
I am also of the opinion that the thimble was placed upon the finger of Eddowes by the killer,(after he found it in her pocket) and placed there to goad the police, this I believe shows a childlike sense of humour.
It's possible that the thimble, could of (like the other items) been dislodged from the finger by the movements of the first officers on the scene.
Regards Cludgy |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
Hi, Cludgy
"Also, who's to say Eddowes belongings wern't arranged next to her body. They could have been disturbed by the feet of the constables who first attended the crime scene."
I think if you want to debate arrangement, you need to find something in the contemporary documentation to support your argument. That's what I've tried to do, although I don't insist I'm right and try to look at reasons why I might be wrong.
Certainly it's possible that the Ripper pulled out the mustard tin and tossed it to the side, retrieved some loose boot buttons and possibly stuck them underneath her (or to her left). Then he leaves all the other items undisturbed in her pockets--they're not strewn about. No mention is made of the rifling of pockets and almost everything she owned was still in them.
I did go back and look at the Chapman inquest--I was incorrect to say that there was a "big" difference, although I still think there was one. One similarity I noticed was that the items found at the Chapman scene were also not noticed until after the body was moved. I also looked to see if there was some indication of blood on Chapman's dress. There was, but it appears to have all come from her wounds (not bloody hands at work). So I admit my idea has some holes.
Still, I don't think we should assume that it's the Ripper at work in regards to a few of Eddowes's things being on the ground. And if thievery was an objective of the Ripper, why strike at the very poorest of victims? Seems like he had other things on his mind.
Cheers,
Dave
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 457
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
PS Robert Linford,
I inadvertently misled you earlier when I said that Eddowes used the pseudonym "Mary Ann Kelly" not only when she was arrested, but also when she pawned John Kelly's boots. Depending on which newspaper you look at, the name on the pawnticket was either "Anne Kelly" or "Jane Kelly". Unless I've missed it, the aliases on the tickets weren't discussed at the inquest. So there you go. I still think we ought to look to John Kelly as the source for the alias instead of Mary Ann Kelly, though.
Just trying to stay honest
Cheers,
Dave
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1181
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Just a few thoughts Jeff about your post above.I believe all the victims were alcohol dependent rather than Narcotic dependent.When there is a real addiction present its usually to one or the other and not to both alcohol and narcotics.Those who are not addicts do its true often mix these substances to get their highs but I doubt very much whether any of the victims were in this category.In fact I think its important to recognise their condition and the fact that it made them easy prey which the ripper had already sussed.Mrs Chapman for example had gone to a temperance society[or something similar]to get help for her dependency and had managed to give up for over a year after which she went back to her heavy drinking which ended her marriage.And Mrs Nicholls had become estranged from her family according to her father,because of her drinking although it is also said that her break with her husband came about because he was carrying on with another woman when she was giving birth to their fifth child.Nice Man!
Best Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3160
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 5:59 pm: | |
Hi Dave
Yes, I agree that John Kelly explains the alias better than Mary.
Owing to the incredibly narrow time window, I can't help having serious doubts whether Harvey went down Church Passage at all.
Robert |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1379
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 4:12 am: | |
Robert,
Im looking at Harvey going down the passage but not being able to see into that corner.
All to do with lamp positions, efficient lights.....and mirrors of course.
Dave O,
There is, or rather seems to me, a ritual element to both Chapman and Eddowes (possibly Kelly).
Regarding the items of Eddowes. Like Cludgy, the thimble and buttons seem placed. Its something that Im looking at right now. If I remember correctly (just had a flash then...ooo-er) the buttons were metallic....false payment ?
Just some of Montys weird thoughts.
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3164
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 7:33 am: | |
Hi Monty
Suppose he killed her, heard Harvey coming up the passage, hid in the shadows, then did the mutilations as soon as Harvey's back was turned. Would that indicate that he was extremely familiar with police beats? The normal instinct would be to cut round into Mitre Street leaving the job unfinished.
I think I remember Scott Medine saying that something had annoyed him that day, and Eddowes caught the full force of it. Being interrupted and having to hide twice in an hour would be annoyance enough, I imagine.
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 7:53 am: | |
Hi, Monty
I kind of consider you the Mitre Square guy, so can I ask you why you see ritualization at work with the buttons and thimble? Any thoughts on the mustard tin or do you think this is just a random item? Arrangement's only mentioned when it comes to placement of Kate's insides. It seems to me that order was seen in one area, but not with the other.
Only one button was metal, the other three were black boot buttons. I've no idea how big an English penny is!
Cheers,
Dave
PS No weird thoughts at all
(Message edited by Oberlin on October 07, 2004) |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 984
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 9:52 am: | |
Hi David
A bronze English penny of the type in circulation in 1888 was 1 1/2 inches in diameter, so it was no small thing. I show one below. This style of penny, with the younger head of Victoria with the bun or chignon circulated from 1860 to 1894, and was superseded by the old veiled head in 1895, a type that was minted until Victoria's death in 1901.
The images show first the obverse with the Queen's head and the reverse with Britannia "ruling the waves." This reverse design featured on British copper and later bronze coins from the reign of Charles II onward. Britannia was first introduced on the copper halfpenny and farthing in 1672 (Samuel Pepys wrote that the model for Britannia was Frances Stewart, the king's mistress). The design, with modifications, lasted on pennies and halfpennies through the early 1970's under the present queen, Elizabeth II, when the modern-day decimal currency came into circulation.
David, I have long thought that one theory might be that the Ripper could have been a poor man because he possibly gave the women money to go with him for sex, and then took the money back after he had murdered them, going through their pockets to retrieve the coins. What we have been discussing in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, with the possessions on the ground, might bear this out, although your point about no clear evidence of his bloody hands rummaging through the victims' clothes might be a strike against the theory.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on October 07, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
Hi, Chris
Many thanks for that currency information; I'm always interested in this type of stuff.
I think that's a very reasonable theory about the Ripper taking money. It's very odd that none of these working prostitutes had any money on them whatsoever. However, I'd suggest that maybe these prostitutes had hiding places for their money, which the Ripper might have seen, places other than their pockets. For example, there's a press report (I think the Star or D.T.) which has John Kelly being presented with Kate's things. One of the things he does is check her bonnet for money. Now I know that we should be skeptical of the press reports--we don't know where the information's coming from. But at the same time it's not a terribly sensational or thrilling detail. So maybe Eddowes kept her money in her bonnet and not her pockets.
To be fair to those who believe the Ripper rummaged through Kate's clothing, there is blood on some of it. But it's not clear (to me anyway) if it's blood that's soaked through from the wounds, or if it's blood from hands. Likewise, the cuts on the "pockets".
I just see it happening differently, that's all |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1381
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
Dave,
Just some views of mine,
1) Its my assumption mustard tins were square and therefore unlikely to roll. Also, the noise of tin on cobble would have attracted someone. It was placed, not in the sense of a meaning but simply put down quietly.
2) Like some, I think the thimble and buttons were in the tin with the tickets.
3) The thimble and buttons were removed from the tin because (as opposed to the pawn tickets), as mentioned, he was looking out for money. Taking them out in that light would make them easier to observe. Also I have an idea that after being paid, Kate place the money in that tin. Pawn tickets are valuable items, treated like money. I feel this tin contained her treasured items. Leaving the pawn tickets behind baffles me though unless our boy didnt know what they were or couldnt read.
4) By ritual, I mean the killers own ritual of going through his victims belongings...not linked to any religious or occult act.
and my sensational claim is....
5) The buttons were congealed in blood. This indicates to me that the tin was rifled through before the act of mutilation. Thimble placed on finger, since dropped of as was mentioned by Cludgy.
Supposition of course.....
.....and Im not the Mitre square Guy, I think you may have me licked on that.
Cheers,
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Hi, Monty
"and Im not the Mitre square Guy, I think you may have me licked on that."
Heh-heh. I don't think so--I've been following your posts with interest over the last couple of years. I think you've got a really good handle on things, although I disagree with you a little. But it wouldn't be half as fun if people agreed, would it?
Just one thing and I'll leave it alone--a whole murder happened without anyone realizing it, so it doesn't seem strange to me that the sound of a tin dropping (not rolling) didn't attract any attention.
Interesting thoughts about money maybe being in the tin--makes sense. What could he have done with them, though? Since they were in women's names, he couldn't have redeemed them. Guess he could have got someone to do it for him.
Cheers,
Dave |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 985
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
Hi Monty & Dave
Monty, I'll say you're not the Mitre Square guy... you're the geezer in the back jigger (alley to our American friends, Dave) with Joseph Merrick in Leicester. 
Monty, I think you may be onto something that the buttons and pawn tickets fell out of the tin or quite possibly were discarded from the tin by the Ripper as being of no use to him after he removed whatever money Kate kept there. Your point that pawn tickets would have been "money" to these women, and thus valuable (though not particularly to the Ripper), is an excellent one.
Your thought that he could have taken the mustard tin out before the mutilation, thus explaining why the buttons were found in congealed blood, might be a good one, although I will say that the passage of time in the square, combined with contamination of the crime scene by policemen in size twelve boots and whomever else happened on the crime scene, might make it difficult to determine what hit the ground first, blood or possessions.
For myself, I am not certain that the thimble was actually on Kate's finger at the time of her murder, despite its discovery in close proximity to her right hand. It easily could have rolled there -- for a thimble, being round in circumference, would have rolled, in contrast to the mustard tin.
As you point out, the mustard tin would have been less likely to roll, and could have been placed on the ground by the Ripper to prevent a sound escaping. I agree with Dave about the general silence of the Ripper's murders. Indeed, I think everything we know about this man's crimes shows that in murdering and mutilating his victims he tried his best to avoid making a sound: he can be characterized by his M.O. of being a swift and largely silent killer, thus making for one of the aspects of the case that makes it so fascinating 116 years later.
All the best
Chris George
(Message edited by chrisg on October 07, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 93
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Hi Chris & Monty,
Concerning the mustard tin. Was it square?
http://www.cricketbits.co.uk/miscellaneous.htm
Scroll down to the third item from the bottom. Click on the picture for an enlargement.
Nina |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3166
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Hi all
I'm not too sure about the Ripper searching the tin for the money he'd just given Kate. If he saw where she put the money, then why not just pocket the tin? Why go to all the trouble, in poor light and at risk to himself, of going through the things in the tin to weed out the money?
Robert |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1382
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 5:33 am: | |
Nina,
The majority of mustard tins during that era were square. They contained the powdered mustard. They still can be found today on shop shelves. According to my mate who worked at Colemans and collects such items.
The one you found is a commemorative piece.
Regular Mustard tins were square.
Regards,
MOnty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 6:03 am: | |
Dave O,
The buildings around todays Mitre sq are vastly different. There is only one high sided structure in the square now. That said, the cobbles remain and I dare say the pavement where Kate was found still makes the same noise. I have sat in that spot and listened. The noise echos around that area. Womens heels boom and unless you are wearing trainers or rubber soled shoes. Basically you hear everything. However, if you lived or worked in the square such noises become ambient sounds. They would be heard but not noted. So I agree….but throwing down of the tin? Too risky no?
Chris T,
They were just my views. The placing of these items coupled with mutilations (especially facial) indicates to me Jack position during these acts. Back to wall, good view of two entrances into the square, excellent view along Church Passage.
However, as stated, just my views.
Rob,
I see your point and its one I am wrestling with. For me it depends when he gave her the money (and if he gave her money at all). Maybe, just to relax her, he let her put the money away without fuss. Its all conjecture in the end.
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Monty, Robert, Chris:
Cheers, Monty--I haven't been to Mitre Square so I respect that fact that you have. I've read about the echoes and your point about ambient sounds makes sense--people just get used to hearing things. I used to live near one of the El trains in Chicago--trains used to rattle my windows but after awhile I stopped hearing it. Kate with her man-boots must have made some noise, even entering the square or as she was being strangled (if she was). I agree that it would be risky for the Ripper to throw the box at all or make any unnecessary noise. I suggest that maybe Kate dropped it herself at the beginning of the attack. The inquest is just vague enough to leave room for speculation. For me, a telling point is that these buttons could have been underneath her--that makes me think they met the ground while Kate was still standing. Unfortunately, the testimony only gives the impression that they could have been under the body. It only says they were in the congealed blood, which you know was not only underneath Kate, but had also pooled to her left. So I have to consider that the buttons were off to her left and just missed during the on-scene examination.
Thanks for letting us know the mustard was powdered--we don't have mustard tins here in the U.S. and I was wondering what they were.
Robert, good point.
Cheers,
Dave |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 986
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Hi Dave
Below is a photograph of a Colman's mustard tin size 20 x 30 cm (8 inches by 12 inches). Presumably, I should hope, Kate Eddowes was not lugging around a can that size. I believe smaller size tins though would have been similar in appearance and shape. Here is the address for questions and answers on an unofficial site for Colman's mustard. The dry mustard was first made in 1814 and the company's tins show medals won for the mustard at the 1878 and 1900 French expositions.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on October 08, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 1:07 pm: | |
Chris,
I love it--always interesting to me how asking questions about the murders takes me into English culture. I forgot that mustard was used as a home remedy.
Sad day, particularly for Liverpool.
Thanks,
Dave |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 987
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 2:35 pm: | |
Hi, Dave
Thanks, Dave. Glad the information was of use to you. Yes it is interesting how cultural differences between US and the UK and between our time and 1888 can lead to us having misconceptions. It was in the old chat room one time that Stewart Evans pointed out that the ginger beer bottles found in Mary Jane Kelly's room were stoneware not glass!
Dave, thanks for the kind words about Liverpool hostage Ken Bigley, beheaded by terrorist in Iraq. Further down the board I post several related poems in his memory.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 463
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 2:57 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
Yes, misconceptions are easy to come by. That's why these message boards are so helpful. I believe we can tell a few things about Kate Eddowes from the crime scene, but there's always the danger of romanticism, especially when she's kind of likable anyway. Look at some of the stuff that's gone on with Mary Jane Kelly. I think it would be so easy to portray Kate Eddowes as some sort of Eliza Doolittle, which would be almost as wrong as thinking of her as a piece of meat.
Dave
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3173
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Garn! I'm a good girl, I am! |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 96
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
Monty,Chris,
Eddowes tin was described as a "penny mustard tin".
Later, in the tin shop, tins from the tiny penny oval size up to the giant 50lb size were produced. From the site Chris mentioned.
This is a Colman's mustard penny tin, vintage 1900. Size 2" x 2".
Square or oval neither would have rolled.
Dave,
We have mustard tins!
Nina |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1183
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 4:25 pm: | |
Yes,thanks Dave for your kind words-I"m from Merseyside too.Quite torn by it all.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3176
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 11:32 am: | |
I'm sure most women would have possessed thimbles as a matter of course, and there's nothing mysterious about it. But just out of interest, I thought I'd post this item from the "Times" Jan 16th 1888.
Robert |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 95
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 1:20 pm: | |
Monty--
I think you must be right about Jack taking the money back. The ladies would have demanded payment first, I should think.
How about this scenario-- Jack pays, she reaches into her pocket to get out the tin. As she's doing this she's naturally looking down at the pocket, which gives him the time to get behind her and take her unawares quickly-I think to strangle first. The money or mustard tin which is in her hand then falls to the ground along with its contents.
Do you think that Jack hid in the shadows of Mitre Square while the constable was patrolling?It seems that he must have needed more than a couple of minutes to kill and mutilate Eddowes. I'm thinking that if the mutilation was what got him his jollies, wouldn't he want to do it slower?
Mags |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 8:16 pm: | |
Hi, Robert
Nice find--I wonder if the Thimble League ever found their funding (that's a good bit of change they were looking for). I think an examination of efforts like these would make a good dissertation, if you ever cared to write it.
Cheers,
Dave |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3177
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 6:53 am: | |
Thanks Dave. I too find these piecemeal Victorian philanthropic efforts interesting. Here's another item, from June 25th 1889 :
The Albert Hall business gave rise to a legal dispute that dragged on till 1891.
Robert |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 8:24 am: | |
Hi David you wrote "Still, I don't think we should assume that it's the Ripper at work in regards to a few of Eddowes's things being on the ground. And if thievery was an objective of the Ripper, why strike at the very poorest of victims? Seems like he had other things on his mind".
surely it must have been JTR who took Eddowes mustard tin out of her pocket, who else could have done it, Eddowes?
And I know that the majority of Eddowes belongings were found intact, in her pockets, but it appears that Eddowes had a plethora of pockets in her garments, and JTR could have missed those pockets.
What I am saying however, is that the intent was there to look through Eddowes pockets as was the case with Chapman.
And with regard to the fact that JTR's victims were of the poorest classes, and so were above being robbed because of their poverty, I don't think so,
There is a type of habitual thief who will thieve from even the lowest classes, one only has to look at the recent case of the old lady who was murdered for the fish and chips she carried in her bag to realise this.
Now I'm not saying that JTR's initial motive was theft, murder was most decidedly his prime motive, but I think that the going through of two of his victims pockets meant that he was looking for something. All I'm saying is was he a common thief as well as a mass murderer?
Regards Cludgy
|
Trev Stone
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 6:35 pm: | |
hi all, i'm back on line after over a year-i've just spent 30 min reading all the posts since i started this thread. An interesting idea from Jeff Leahy, who mentions that the thimble could have been used to measure Laudinum, or another narcotic. He could be on to something here, as Eddowes was the only victim to be tested for traces of drugs. I am still a "Maybrickist" though, and this just strenghtens my inital feelings. trev. |
Barry Kay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 5:28 am: | |
Hi, Iv not posted before.The ripper was a serial killer.the placing of items is ritualistic.at the time of the murders , a popular past time was "slumming" i dont think he wanted money. just trophies.The mustard tin would make a noise but i grew up in London in the 50s. people expected noise. |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 5:29 pm: | |
Inspector Chandler on Chapman's pocket: "pocket was found worn underneath her skirt, apparently still attached. It was torn at the front and at the side."
More on arrangement, this time from Wynne Baxter: "All was done with cool impudence and reckless daring; but perhaps nothing was more noticeable than the emptying of her pockets, and the arrangement of their contents with business-like precision in order near her feet.(my emphasis)" Baxter seems to have been struck by this part of Phillips's testimony, although Inspector Chandler doesn't mention anything about arrangement.
Eddowes's pockets:
2 Unbleached Calico Pockets, tape strings, cut through also top left hand corners, cut off one.
1 Blue Stripe Bed ticking Pocket, waist band, and strings cut through, (all 3 Pockets) Blood stained.
Strings purposefully cut by the Ripper or are these cuts incidental to the abdominal wounds?
(Message edited by oberlin on October 11, 2004) |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 100
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 7:22 pm: | |
In the above, it seems that the "pocket" is a separate thing to the garment, not a part of it as we usually use the term.
I get the impression that if we substituted the word "pouch" for "pocket" we'd get a clearer picture.
Mags |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
Hi, Maria
A pocket seems to me to be like a little bag or purse with strings.
Cheers,
Dave |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 98
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 9:18 pm: | |
Dave, Maria,
Women wore pockets under their skirts, they tied them around their waist. They were accessible through openings in the skirt. These pockets were oval shaped and some had string closings. Women could carry a wide array of items that would not be practical if the pockets were sewn into the skirt, heavy items would have torn the skirt.
I believe that the pockets were cut during the mutilation. They were simply in the way.
Eddowes also had two pockets in her jacket and two pockets in her vest. That's a whole lot of pockets!
Nina
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 990
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 10:19 am: | |
Hi all
Yes I think these were possibly pockets on drawstrings that the woman would attach to the waistband of her petticoat, under her skirt, in which she could keep valuables for safekeeping.
An old term is "cutpurse" for a thief, and during medieval days, men kept their money in pouches tied to their belts, and presumably women used a similar system. See "What the Medieval Man In The Street Needs...".
A woman of the name of Moll Cutpurse appears with another character named Jack Dapper in the play by Dekker and Middleton, "The Roaring Girl" (c. 1608-1611). Another period scoundrel was John Rann, known as Sixteen-String Jack, a highwayman executed at Tyburn on 30 November 1774, for highway robbery. Two more of the myriad alternatives for the name "Jack" to refer to a miscreant as possibly precursers to the name "Jack the Ripper." 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 4:29 pm: | |
I think that it is interesting that even though MJK was seen with at least two men the night of her death, there is no mention of any money having been found. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page