|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Police Constable
Username: Ash
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 5:35 am: |       |
Shannon I question your logic on the "lying in wait" aspect. Ignoring Polly, although I don't see how she could have been lost so close to Whitechapel Road, your own arguments negate the other two. If Annie Chapman was so far from where she normally worked, what possible reason would she have had for being in the yard at 29 Hanbury Street unless someone persuaded her to go there? Similarly Kate Eddowes was seen walking down Houndsditch, Mitre Square is to the south of this and her lodgings far to the north. What reason could she have had for passing through the square other than somebody persuading her to go there? |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 5:38 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: A mention of a reward was made by the foreman at Chapman's inquest. He stated that Mr. Montague MP posted 100 pounds to be used as a reward, however the Government did not want to offer a reward because of the trouble it caused in the past. This fact was made public in the 'Times' 20 September.
The 'East London Observer' reported two days later that the committee was 'getting up' subscriptions and they expected to triple that amount. Perhaps Elizabeth Stride was waiting for the reward offered to increase or perhaps she thought she'd try to bribe first.
SHANNON: Nichols was killed after 2:30 a.m., Chapman was last seen alive at 5:30 a.m., Elizabeth Stride was murdered just before 1:00 a.m. That was too early for the Ripper to be trolling for victims. That's why I don't think he had his knife on him, and Stride's murder wasn't as planned as the others. So why jump to the conclusion that there was another killer?
Nichols was found lying on her BACK.
Chapman was found lying on her BACK.
Stride was found lying on her LEFT-SIDE.
Eddowes was found lying on her BACK too.
In Stride's case, the knife was inserted into her left side, (the lowest side), and pulled UPWARDS.
'Even if it only took a minute and a half for her to die that is time enough for the killer to rip her as he did the other victims'
but how could he do this when he was hiding in the dark yard?
'he still had the other because he used it on Kate an hour later.' An hour is all he would have needed to pick his knife up, on the way!
Stride couldn't use her LEFT arm in self defence, because she was laying on her left side! Her RIGHT hand was smeared with blood because she raised it to her throat to cover her wound, and guard against a second cut.
Liz's left arm was raised above her body' That sounds like you think it was raised vertically! Dr. Blackwell testified: "The left arm was lying ON THE GROUND..." Dr. Phillips testified: "The left arm was EXTENDED."
'I believe the killer chose the site and waited for someone that fitted the 'type' of victim he was looking for to arive.' So, we agree that it wasn't Michael Kidney, good. But I'm confused, because in an earlier post you said: 'She knew her killer.' If her killer just waited for someone to arrive who fitted the 'type', do you think he was just lucky and found one that he knew as well?
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Police Constable
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 6:06 am: | |
Alan: "Ignoring Polly, although I don't see how she could have been lost so close to Whitechapel Road..."
She was drunk and heading in the oppsosite direction from the lodging. I do not believe she knew where she was going in her condition.
"If Annie Chapman was so far from where she normally worked, what possible reason would she have had for being in the yard at 29 Hanbury Street unless someone persuaded her to go there?"
I agree, someone enticed her to follow. I believe it was the killer who chose the location and not Annie. She went along in the belief she would earn her doss money and return to the lodging house.
Similarly Kate Eddowes was seen walking down Houndsditch, Mitre Square is to the south of this and her lodgings far to the north. What reason could she have had for passing through the square other than somebody persuading her to go there?
If Kate were working (again, I do not believe she was), why did she even go in this direction after leaving the police station? She was sober enough to be released, and even the PC noticed that she headed in the wrong direction. Had she been "working," it is a lot more likely she would have headed towards Comercial and the pubs where she stood a good chance of finding trade if that was her intention. She may have actually been heading to Bermondsey where she last knew her daughter lived in the hopes of finding her, and borrowing some money as she claimed, which would have taken her in that direction. |
Shannon Christopher
Police Constable
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 6:12 am: | |
Leanne: "That's why I don't think he had his knife on him, and Stride's murder wasn't as planned as the others..."
Then how is it he made it all the way back to Miller's court after killing Liz (providing you believe Joseph did the killing), retrieved his knife and made it all the way from the court to Mitre Square in time to murder Kate? |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 669
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 6:22 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
Who said he kept his 'tool kit' at Miller's Court?
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Police Constable
Username: Ash
Post Number: 6
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 6:24 am: | |
Shannon, I see your point on the first two, it is my opinion also that the locations of the murders were of the Ripper's choosing. On Kate however the answer to your question lies also in PC Henry Hutt's testimony.
When I was taking her out of the cell, she asked me what time it was. I answered, "Too late for you to get any more drink."
In other words, the pubs were closed by this time so there was no point in her heading there. However, any girl working the streets at that time would have known her trade and would have known that another good source of custom at that time of night were men leaving the working men's clubs which were open much later. And where was Kate next seen? Exactly outside one such working men's club. |
Shannon Christopher
Police Constable
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 9
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 6:37 am: | |
Alan, it was only 01:00 when she was released. The PC was being sarcastic. It was his way of telling her to go home and sleep it off, you have already had enough to dring for one night.
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 796
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 6:38 am: | |
Hi Leanne
Poor Jack! If he's not being blackmailed by Eddowes he's being blackmailed by Stride!
I believe that any woman who thought she knew who he was would have whizzed along to the police and/or Press faster than you can say "I w-w-w-want to c-c-claim the r-r-reward".
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 6:51 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
Kate left to find her daughter in Bermondsey, at 2:00p.m. and told John Kelly she'd be home no later than 4:00p.m. I'd say she went there first, but her daughter was sick of her budging money so had moved without telling her. She may have thought she had to earn some money to take home to John Kelly, so she wouldn't get a "damned fine hiding".
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 5:32 am: | |
In looking for similarities in the persons that Stride was seen with on the night of her death,little attention has been drawn to the similarities of the person seen with her in Fairclough street,and at the murders of Chapman and Eddowes.
The similarities were the close proximity of the male person and the victim.One might class it as a position of familiarity,of persons who knew each other.In each case the woman is against the wall,with the male with his back to passers by,and the bodies in a near touching position.
It is my experience,that women who meet men that are stranger to them,does not readily allow this situation.I also suggest that prostitutes more than others,are prone to keep strangers at arms length untill commiting themselves,and then only at the place chosen for sexual activity do they need and allow a touching situation.
At two of the locations,it seems that a proposition was put by the male.This was accepted by Chapman,and rejected by Stride,though in the later case there was hope given for sometime in the future.(another indication that they knew their companion?).
In the case of Stride the times given allow for the Fairclough street male to be in the immediate vicinity for the following events,and it was possible for him to have been the second person Schwartz saw,and who may have comforted Stride after the drunk departed.She at least would probably not have been afraid of him.Why should she,when he had offered no harm in Fairclogh street.
In the three cases above,the general description of the male are preety much the same.
|
Shannon Christopher
Police Constable
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 2:22 pm: | |
Leanne, if all Kate was interested in was the money and really was a prostitute as others have claimed, why did she always try to mooch from family instead of just turning a trick or two when she needed the cash? She bothered her daughter so much for money that her daughter moved and didnt tell Kate where she was living... Something to consider.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 11
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
Leanne: "Who said he kept his 'tool kit' at Miller's Court?"
Leanne, the streets of Whitechapel are no place to leave the tools of your trade if you want to keep them (especially when it is a knife used in possibly two or more murders). Joseph at this time was not working at Billingsgate Market, so where would he have felt comfortable leaving the evidence to the Ripper crimes other than in his own place? |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 2:34 pm: | |
Leanne, Why did Kate go hop picking in the country instead of making her way to any of the local pubs to find "employment?" She and John had to walk or hitch a ride out of the city to the country, live in the fields, and make a pence or two. Would have been far easier for her to lift her skirt dont you think? Providing she was a prostitute which I still dont believe she was. To me, she had some personal problems, drinking being the worst, however, I see someone who would work if possible at an honest trade and failing that become a mooch on family rather than work the streets. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 806
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 5:25 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
But Kate got the fuel for her fire engine impressions from somewhere, didn't she?
Robert |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 16
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 7:43 pm: | |
Robert, drinking was a problem for Kate; however, being drunk doesn't lead to prostitution. She may have even been a bit of a tease to get a free drink every now and then, but again, it doesnt make her a prostitute anymore than it does half the women you meet in a bar today that are alcoholics looking for a free drink to support their addiction. You can be an alcoholic without being a prostitute, and you can be a prostitute without being an alcoholic.
Shannon |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 672
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 6:47 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: A lot of people did whiz off to the police to dob in people they were suspicious of. Joesph Isenschmid is an example. He was dobbed in by 'a man named tyler' because he was in the habit of carrying butcher's knives around everywhere. But no one dobbed in the right one!
Catharine Eddowes said she knew something but never got there quick enough did she?
SHANNON: At Kate's inquest, her daughter Annie Phillips said that she had 2 brothers and 'Her mother did not know where to find either of them; the information was purposely kept from her. She supposed that that was in order to prevent her mother from applying to them for money.' Kate was desperate and there were no relatives to 'mooch' from.
'so where would he have felt comfortable leaving the evidence?' You'll have to wait until mine and Richard's book is published, (which is 10 chapters long at the moment, and we still haven't finished).
Kate and John went hoppicking and returned to London without much money on September 27. As most people went for roughly a month, I'd say they left just after the murder of Nichols hit the papers, and they were probably away when Chapman was killed. When they returned, they didn't have enough money for their lodgings and there were no relatives to bludge off!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 248
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 7:03 am: | |
I'm back...
Hi Robert and Shannon,
I think it's an interesting point that Eddowes wasn't a prostitute. I think this question has arisen in connection with most of the victims, and I really wonder if it's that significant.
Yes, Kate most certainly had drinking problems -- like so many other inhabitants in the East End. But how do we know that Kate didn't fall into prostitution during periods as well as having drinking sprees? It is true that she tried to get money elsewhere as well and it is also true that she had a life companion (like Stride), but these circumstances can't totally rule out the possibility that she didn't one time or another did "walk the street".
I think it's a fair assumption that a great deal of women in the poorer districts of the East End did this occasionally, maybe not full-time, but I believe the money was needed -- even if they had someone waitning for them at home.
If Kate did fall into prostitution, I don't think she did it on a regular basis. But I'm having trouble with the fact that she appeared on Mitre Square just before the murder. What business did she have there otherwise?
And yes, Shannon, "You can be an alcoholic without being a prostitute, and you can be a prostitute without being an alcoholic", but the link between the two is a common fact. The money spent on drink made the womens' financial situation even worse so they had to continue looking for money. And licker do have a tendency to weaken your judgement and make you bolder or do things you maybe normally shouldn't -- especially if you're desperate for money. And especially if you're not able to get work elsewhere (and generally the wages were a disgrace). So can we exclude that even women like good old Kate didn't jump on the opportunity when she was drunk? I think not. The social factors in the East End speaks for themselves. And even if she did other activities, like hop-picking, we must remember that Eddowes were totally broke the night of the murder.
I don't believe she did it frequently, though; the police would probably have known or at least recognized her if that was the case, although we can't be sure -- the coppers had a large clientel to deal with, no photograpghs were obviously taken of prostitutes taking into custody and the women also for the most part used faked names or borrowed names from one another to confuse the police.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 673
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 7:26 am: | |
G'day,
A lot of 'married' men in those days ignored the fact that their 'wives' were prostituting themselves, because they had to.
At her inquest John Kelly said that: 'he did not know that she ever went out for immoral purposes' Then he finished by saying how she had to go to Bermondsey to borrow money: 'so that she need not walk the streets'.
Mr. Crawford snapped back: 'You were asked before if she walked the streets, and you said she did not!'
Kelly answered: 'Sometimes we were without money to pay for our lodging, and we were at the time I speak of.'
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 250
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 7:47 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Exactly my point. For once we agree on something.
Congratulations to the ten chapters, by the way. You're on a roll, then...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 675
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 7:57 am: | |
G'day Glenn,
We agreed on something else once, I'm sure!
Remember, if a reader isn't convinced on the suspect we picked, some new issues may be debated.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 676
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 8:04 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
I remember reading once that the pubs closed at 11:00 or 12:00, (I'll try to look it up, if you wish).
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 8:48 am: | |
Legal closing times were not introduced until some time during the first world war. But most of the pubs tended to close sometime around midnight or shortly after. There probably would have been one or two still open at 1.00 when Kate was released from the police station but not very many. Particularly the ones around Spitalfields would probably have closed by then as they would have opened very early that morning to cater for people up from the country for the market. |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 22
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 2:38 pm: | |
Glenn: “Dutfield's Yard or Berner Street wasn't that more risky compared to the other murder sites.”
Dutfields yard: (from Casebook): On the north side, on your right as you enter the gates, is the Worker's Club. On the south side are three artisan's dwellings converted from older buildings. On the left of the entrance are terraced cottages occupied by cigarette makers and tailors.” The area within the yard is completely enclosed with numerous building and people moving about. I would say this is a lot more dangerous than 29 Hanbury with the number of people up at that time of the morning. According to PC Lamb, “On my arrival there were about thirty people in the yard, and others followed me in.” And, “I entered the club and left a constable at the gate to prevent any one passing in or out. I examined the hands and clothes of all the members of the club. There were from fifteen to twenty present…”
I would more have attempted a murder in the back of a residential location with only the lights from the windows of the patrons who were sleeping, than to kill in an open court yard surrounding by building with people awake! Please tell me what part of this is a “exaggeration and whopping fib?”
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 258
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | |
But Shannon,
The murder in Hanbury Street was done during or after sun-up, and some of the residents had already gone up and started their daily work! The "traffic" of people had already begun and it is a miracle noone really didn't walked right into the yard during the event. And this area was "enclosed with numerous buildings" as well.
The murder in Dutfield's yard was done in total darkness and at night! And not to mention that the the commosion in the Club also drew people's attention away from whatever happened in the yard. Why are you disregarding from that? Do you really seriously mean that doing a murder in a quiet spot (but full with sleeping or awake people) is less risky? Then I don't understand your reasoning at all.
What do you think is a most risky operation:
-- to murder someone in a quiet yard in early morning daylight, with the building full of residents either occupied with their work or just getting out of bed (and the windows open!), and where anyone could have stepped out in the middle of the scene at any second? There was a lot of action going on in 29 Hanbury Street, and the corridor from the front of the house to the yard was well used. This is really a high risk operation, especially as the deed was done at sun-up and not at night or in darkness!
(Hanbury Street)
or
-- murder someone in a dark, secluded yard at night with noise from a meeting or party in the house close by, making it less probable that anyone should be aware of any suspicious sounds or cries?
(Dutfield's Yard)
I know what I should have chosen if I was the killer...
Finally:
"According to PC Lamb, “On my arrival there were about thirty people in the yard, and others followed me in.” And, “I entered the club and left a constable at the gate to prevent any one passing in or out."
Of course, but this was after the murder, Shannon(or am I totally mistaken here?)! It is not that uncommon that a crowd of people or bystanders are gathering after a dramatic event has taken place, and they could very well come from the whole neighbourhood and surrounding streets. This has absolutely nothing to do with the actual "traffic" on Berner Street in general.
As you know by now I believe the Ripper did both murders, and I only want to make the point that Dutfield's Yard is very much comparable with the other murder sites, and it is definitely not more risky than Hanbury Street or Mitre Square.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 2:37 pm: | |
Hi All; Regardless of the closing times of the pubs, both of the Jewish Social Clubs seemed to let out at the same time. Things were just wrapping up at the Berner St. Club when Mr. Diemschultz came along at 1.A.M. The men leaving the Duke St. Club were leaving the meeting at 1.30 A.M.
I think this is what attracted both of the women that night to social clubs at that hour.
Yes, Catharine had a drinking problem, and she knew enough to head in the opposite direction from her lodgings in order to find a drink.
IF her hand was on the sailor's chest, she may have been looking for his flask of rum!
Liz, however, didn't seem too interested in getting overly drunk that night. She seemed to be waiting around for the club to let out.
Both women were known to do cleaning among the Jews, and Liz could speak Hebrew.
Both women also were wearing scarves that were cut by the knife.
Instead of prostitution, they both may have had an easy mark within the Jewish community who would give them some money or a drink.
So the Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing, they were like bait to the victims, and if it didn't go well the first time, Jack re-created a similar scenario in a different location.
Joan |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
