|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 12:00 pm: |       |
In Bob Hinton's "From Hell" he suggests that Eddowes wasn't a prostitute at all and backs up his assertion by the fact that she had never been charged by the police as such.
Bearing in mind the huge amount of street walkers at the time, what was the likliehood of one of these women practising their trade and never being charged?
What sort of record did the other canonical victims have?
Were they usually taken to court or merely given a bed for the night?
If it was unusual for a practising prostitute to have a clean record then it does add some weight to Bob's arguement that Eddowes was a specific target of Jack and not just a random choice.
Alan |
Shannon Christopher
Police Constable
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 22, 2003 - 10:21 pm: | |
Alan, It was surprising that given her intoxicated state (singing and carying on) that NONE of the officers either on beat or at the station knew her. You would think that either in passing as they told her to move her business elsewhere, or in arresting her for solicitation at least one of them would have recognized her had she been arrested or questioned at some point considering the length of time she had lived in Whitechapel. The other police station on Lehman street didnt seem to know anything about her either which makes one question whether she was a prostitute and my belief is that she was not. As I have stated on other message postings I believe she had a drinking problem but that does not make her a prostitute. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 5:19 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
Eddowes was not a prostitute, that I Believe one hundred per cent fact, there is no way she entered that square for immoral purposes, I can say no more.for it will become apparent in leanne and mine forthcoming book.
Regards Richard. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 269
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 24, 2003 - 11:51 am: | |
Richard,
100% fact !!
This isnt another Cornwell 'case solved' is it ?
Those that fail to learn from the mistakes of history.....
Well, something like that.
Monty
 |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 3:53 am: | |
Hi Monty,
I did not mean our book is one hundred per cent fact, I was just refering to Eddowes morals, every statement made by people who knew her,give her a honest character, therefore we must assume that she was unlikely to prostitute herself, as it would have been so out of character.
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 8:44 am: | |
G'day,
Catharine Eddowes DID prostitute herself that morning!!!!!!! I recently typed this somewhere else, and now I'm going to have to type it again:
At Kate's inquest John Kelly said: 'I never suffered her to go out for immoral purposes..' (notice how carefully he worded that: "I NEVER SUFFERED")
Then when he next appeared he said: "Her object in going to Bermondsey was to see if she could find her daughter and get a little money from her, so she need not walk the streets." (this implied that walking-the-streets was an option if she had no money.)
Mr. Crawford said sternly: "You were asked 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."
Many 'married' men in the East End of London in those days, had to turn a blind eye to their 'wives' occasional prostitution, and I'd say that John Kelly was one of them!
RICHARD: Of course her family and close friends are going to say that she was a woman of pure morals. John Kelly was probably the only one who knew the truth!
I guess this will be one part of our book where we present two opinions. A reader will have to decide!
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 19
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 8:54 am: | |
I find a flaw in the logic that because people said she was of good character she cannot have been a prostitute. As I recall every one of the victims had at least one person turn up at their inquest and say something along these lines. There are two very obvious reasons for this;
1. Guilt by association. Nobody would want everybody thinking they consorted with this sort of person.
2. Ever heard the expression "don't speak ill of the dead"? |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 10:32 am: | |
Kelly's inquest testimony is evasive, so he wouldn't come right out and say Kate was a prostitute. When he talks about "walking the streets", he literally means that without lodging, Kate would have been forced to tramp up and down the streets until morning. See The Daily Telegraph's report of the inquest:
[Coroner] What do you mean by "walking the streets?" - I mean that if we had no money to pay for our lodgings we would have to walk about all night.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 11:49 am: | |
Precisely, Dave.
And in any case, no one but Jack would have known for sure if Kate was offering sexual services for money that night, after leaving the police station.
The reason she feared a damn fine hiding when she got home was not simply that she had been away for hours getting drunk, but that at the end of it all she didn't have a single penny to show for her absence. Now relatively sober, she may well have decided that she was already so late that half an hour more couldn't make things any worse for her, but if she could take a peace offering back to Kelly it might make them a whole lot better.
A spot of light whoring outside a social club she knew would still be open would be just the ticket and exactly what the doctor ordered - or it would have been if the chap Kate encountered had been anyone other than Jack.
Love,
Caz
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 271
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
Richard,
Dont assume.
But if I was honest, Im with you.
It begs the question, why, in the midst of a killers reign, did Kate go into a dark square with someone who turned out to be her killer ?
Quite a few answers.....which one do you choose?
Monty
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 12:36 pm: | |
I think the spur of the moment decision, taken in direct consequence of one's personal circumstances, and immediate needs or desires, all too often takes precedence over the bigger picture - ok, so there's a lunatic on the prowl who rips up women, but what are the chances of actually meeting him tonight, compared with the certainty of trouble if I go back to the old man with no cash?
Love,
Caz |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 817
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 2:11 pm: | |
Hi all
It seems to me that if Eddowes planned to go home at all, she would have been planning to first do some business to raise some money - otherwise, they wouldn't have let her in.
Of course, it's possible she still had some money left from her drinking spree - but unlike Shannon I have difficulty believing that people bought her enough free drinks to get drunk on, so where did she get the wherewithal?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 4:34 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
I want to answer my feelings, but I am reluctant to do so , because of the book, but I will say one point, even if there is a chance Eddowes, did offer her services, the evidence which is overwhelming, shows she did not walk into the square voluntary.
I Still maintain that Catherine Eddowes was not a practising prostitute, she was a one man lady, although there is no doubt that her general appearence, highlighted the posibility, that she was of that character.
Yes indeed, she did appear to get well fortified with alcohol, up to the time of her arrest, and it is obvious she obtained enough money to pay her way, but from prostitution, I dispute that.
Regards Richard. |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 4:23 am: | |
Hi All,
Catherine Eddowes had made arrangements to met someone or some persons that night. That is why she was so eager to be released from custody and seen heading off in the direction of Mitre Square.
What desperate woman would give up a 'free' nights doss, and with the luxury of the Police to guard her?
She was also reported as being seen in the company of 2 men.
She had earlier said that day that she knew about the murders.
Still what do we know?
Caz, I am still upset about your comments on Safeway's cheap drinks.
A.
A. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 5:52 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I look forward to your book and all this 'overwhelming' evidence that shows Kate didn't walk into Mitre Square voluntarily.
Hi Andy,
I just think Kate had a good idea of how she could get herself some cash to take back to Kelly, in the hope that he would be pleased with her instead of thinking what a useless drunken baggage she had become. What exactly her idea consisted of we can only speculate.
I don't know how much longer the police would have entertained Kate for free once she had sobered up, if she hadn't gone voluntarily. But I somehow doubt she'd have got coffee and a smoked salmon bagel on the house at 8.30am. 
I wouldn't be surprised if many women in the area had their own ideas of who the ripper might be - they must have seen plenty of dodgy-looking characters about - and those who weren't above selling their favours when no other opportunity for earning a quick fourpence presented itself would have seen and dealt with more dodgy customers than those who stuck with hop-picking and cleaning jobs.
Jack had been ripping up prostitutes and Kate thought she knew him? Just a thought.
If you are in the Darts on Saturday week, I'll buy you and Sue a nice expensive drink each. I don't like the thought of you being upset. 
Have a great weekend all. I'm off to a school reunion lunch tomorrow to celebrate the 90th birthday of my old headmistress. I haven't been back there since leaving in 1971 so it's going to seem very odd.
Love,
Caz |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 273
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 9:24 am: | |
Richard, Andy,
Richard,
I cant see the overwhelming evidence which indicates that Kate did not walk into the square voluntary. Which means you know something I dont. Which means old Monty is going to have to buy your book.
Andy,
Kate was spotted with 2 men that night?
That was a confirmed sighting ? Im assuming you refer to the unidentified witnesses in St james Square ?
Just curious mate,
Monty
PS Raymond in a spot of bother eh ? |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 1:37 pm: | |
Hello Monty,
Let's deal with the most important bit first.
Yes, sorry to say Raymond did get caught in that handbag stuff. He usually stays out of that sort of thing, he is pretty laid back, but he has to face the music now. I just hope the FA remember that he has been no problem on the pitch really, in his 12 years as a pro. I do know that van Nistelroy is a bit of a wind-up merchant, he gives other players plenty of verbal, but that is part of the 'modern game', but I would still have him in my team instead of that other bunch of foreign 'powder puffs'. Whinger Wenger has blinkers on whenever his players are involved, but has hawk eyes when other teams do anything he don't like.
Sod JTR, forgot what I was going to say about Eddowes anyway.
A. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 12
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 9:08 pm: | |
Hello,
I'm not sure why there's still so much discussion as to whether or not Eddowes was a prostitute. In his inquest statement Kelly makes it clear that she had indeed sold herself. I believe it was only occasionally, and probably only to support her alcoholism. That, to my mind, is why she invented the 'daughter-in Bermondsey' lie. Her daughter had not been there for some time, but Kelly didn't know that because he never accompanied Eddowes on her Bermondsey trips. But if Eddowes were to leave Kelly penniless, only to show up later drunk and, possibly, with money on her person, she had to explain it. This is, I believe, what occured on the day of her murder. But all speculation aside, Kelly does make mention of her prostituting herself. I'm sorry I'm not at my home and cannot quote him, but it's there.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 28
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 9:44 pm: | |
Andy, when Kate headed out of the police station at Bishopsgate, she headed in a straight line, and was killed along the way before she could complete the journey. She was not heading for Mitre Square as the only thing there are a few warehouses. If she were looking for "trade" assuming she is a prostitute, why not head for someplace closer? Some have suggested she was going to a gentleman's club of sorts because they stay open longer then the pubs. There are plenty of clubs closer to her Doss house than one in Aldgate.
If you take her path and continue for another couple of miles through Mitre Square, across to Lloyd, and down to the Tower bridge you come to Bermondsey; where she said she was going to find her daughter. She might have been sidetracked by getting drunk, but I believe she told John the truth, and was heading in that direction when she was murdered.
Shannon |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 141
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:28 pm: | |
Cheers, Tom
When you're able, could you locate Kelly's statement that Kate sold herself? It seems strange that he would try to put the best face on things, only to candidly admit she was a prostitute.
Alcoholism and prostitution, John Kelly's not owning up to it either way, which is why I believe Crawford leans so heavily on him during the inquest (as I read it). If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate your pointing me to where he says otherwise.
I agree that Kate probably was a casual prostitute, and the best evidence I can think of for that is her presence in Mitre Square in the middle of the night and that she was the victim of a killer who killed only prostitutes. There's also the question of where she got her drinking money, but that could have come from stealing for all we know.
Dave |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 29
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:43 pm: | |
Dave, Kate may have looked to the killer like a prostitute; which doesn't mean she was one. My belief as I posted on another board is that Kate was on her way through Mitre Square, not to Mitre Square. If you look on a map the square is on the way from the police station to Bermondesy, which is where she said she was going to find her daughter.
Shannon |
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 11:06 pm: | |
Hi, Shannon
Sure, but what's suspicious to me is that not only is Kate in Mitre Square, but she's there in between police beats, a short window which speaks to me of some kind of illegal activity. Also, if you accept the eyewitness testimony, it's probable that she had some sort of dialogue with JtR before proceeding into the square. So not only did she look like a prostitute, it appears that she also talked like one.
As far as Bermondsey, it's my speculation that she went there in the afternoon, just as she told Kelly she would. When she found that Annie was giving her the dodge like the rest of the family, it supplied the justification (like she needed any) for her drinking binge that night. "Why, that ungrateful snot! After I helped her through her confinement!"
But we can disagree. I think Catherine Eddowes is by far the most interesting victim Lots of stuff to sift through. I think the dating of the pawnticket is good stuff, too.
Cheers,
Dave |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 30
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 11:11 pm: | |
As you can see by the following are from the inquest into Kate's death, she was NOT a prostitute (even a occasional one):
[John Kelly] I saw her alive about two o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday in Houndsditch. We parted on very good terms. She told me she was going over to Bermondsey to try and find her daughter Annie.
[Coroner] Did you know why she was locked up? - [John Kelly] Yes, for drink; she had had a drop of drink, so I was told. I never knew she went out for any immoral purpose.
[Coroner] What do you mean by "walking the streets?" - [John Kelly] I mean that if we had no money to pay for our lodgings we would have to walk about all night. I was without money to pay for our lodgings at the time.
[Coroner] Did you know she was in the habit of walking the streets at night? - [Frederick William Wilkinson] (Deputy of the lodging house) No; she generally used to return between nine and ten o'clock. I never knew her to be intimate with any particular individual except Kelly; and never heard of such a thing. She use to say she was married to Conway; that her name was bought and paid for - meaning that she was married."
|
David O'Flaherty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 11:34 pm: | |
Hi, Shannon
It's my belief that John Kelly wasn't particularly forthcoming at the Eddowes Inquest. Note his choice of words: "a drop of drink" when we know she was roaring drunk.
I agree with you that he did not openly label her as a prostitute. Do you have an opinion why the solicitor Crawford questioned him so closely?
Dave |
Shannon Christopher
Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 32
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 12:40 am: | |
David, looking over the inquest, it appears Mr. Crawford was just as intense with the others who were called to testify. (IMO) I think he was feeling the pressure to solve the case as much as the other officials were. With the number of unsolved murders on the rise and the papers coming down as hard on the police as they were, no one wanted to appear to be indifferent to the case regardless of their personal opinions (especially considering the killer was removing a portion of society no one really seemed to care about).
Shannon
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
