|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 96
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 2:42 am: |       |
Hi Shannon,
This is carried over from the Barnett thread.
Anyway, from the previous thread, my reference to "not proven" indicates I'm not saying your suggestions are impossible. And, each point by itself, would be easily explained with or without prostitution. Taken as a whole, however, the pattern is highly suggestive of prostitution. That means, you need a different explanation for each part of the puzzle, but the prostitutation explanation only requires one thing to explain the whole pattern. That's why the prostitution explanation is generally favoured. No, it's not proven, but it fits the facts with fewer assumptions. And, since Jack's other victims were prostitutes, her murder fits that part of the pattern as well.
Basically, all we can do with the evidence we have is try and find the fewest assumptions that explain the most data. Sometimes we'll be wrong, most times we won't. Since we can't know when we're right or wrong, however, all we can do is try and reduce the probability that we are wrong.
Your explanation that the dark and secluded location was his choice, not hers, seems to beg the question as to why she went though? If he forced her, why did no one in the square hear? If she went willingly, but not for prostitution, what sort of innocent explanation are you envisioning that would have her follow a stranger into a dark and secluded area when the Jack the Ripper scare is going on? I'm not following what you are thinking.
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 3:04 am: | |
Hi Guys,
When discussing Stride, it has been suggested frequently that the man seen atacking her mayby was not her killer.
So why cant the same scenerio, apply to Eddowes, and the man of sailor like appearence, seen by Lawande and co, was just simply a punter trying his luck, with a reluctant Eddowes, if this poor woman was not a prostitute, she would have been saying 'Im not that kind of woman ' and it is extremely likely that after Lawande and co moved on , so did the unlucky punter.
Eddowes would not want to go in the same direction as him, and may have cut through the square to avoid doing so.
I believe she was attacked, not far from where she was found, and violently pulled into the corner, by her left hand, by his right hand,whilst his left hand was clasped over her mouth, and then murdered.
I have never believed, that the man Lawande saw was her killer, it simply does not fit the style of the Ripper' who in my humble opinion , was a extremely voilent animal, and not a patient charmer,
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 892
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 4:38 am: | |
Hi Shannon
I think you believe
1. Kate wasn't a prostitute, or at the most only a very occasional one.
2. Kate had no intention of prostituting herself that weekend, and Kelly wasn't expecting her to.
3. Kate wouldn't have wanted to spend any more time in BPS than was necessary, because of the lack of privacy etc.
This makes certain things quite difficult to understand.
Take Kelly's parting warning to Kate, and Kate's assurance that she wouldn't fall into JTR's hands.
Why should she, if she was going away from Whitechapel, in broad daylight, with no plans for prostitution, and expecting to be back in the afternoon?
Later Kelly hears that Kate's in jail. He'd have known about BPS's practice of bailing drunks and, if you're right, he'd have known of Kate's reluctance to stay at BPS longer than she had to. But he doesn't go along to check on her, when she'd be likely to be out, whether he could accompany her home etc. Yet he was concerned about her in the afternoon.
Isn't it simpler to say that Kelly expected her to bring home some money, no questions asked?
Robert
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 349
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 5:19 am: | |
Thank you for putting up this thread, Jeff.
Shannon,
When you use words like "convict" and "guilty" in connection with prostitutes it really says more about your personal view upon these women rather than us being judgemental. I think it is a disgrace. You are the one being judgmental here.
I don't think I can put it any better than Jeff already has, but I just want to state that I dont condemn her or accuse her of anything -- like the others she lived in a harsh environment (this wasn't Disneyland, Shannon) and tried to make the best of it. Why should that be so appauling?. I simply think that there are no reasons for ruling out the possibility that she was a prostitute; this really shouldn't be that much of a problem.
You state that we have no evidence showing this was the case, but I'd rather turn it the other way around. Since she had serious alcohol problems, lived on the street, for the most part was out of money AND had prior convictions, she really fits all the qualifications of a prostitute woman of that time that I have ever come across. She's evidently showing characteristics similar to the other Ripper victims, or wasn't they prostitutes either?
As Jeff says, you need to put up alternative explanations in order to make the opposite work and I still haven't seen any arguments that shows us why she would be an exception to the rule. I don't know of I would like to call it sterotypes, but the few facts we have -- which is all we have to base our assumptions on -- points in one direction and doesen't indcicate anything extraordinary to exclude her from this category of women. I'd rather use this as a basis for analysis than emotional arguments about what I would want and not want her to be (which is irrelevant). To state that she wasn't at least an occasional prostitue, based on what we already know about the context, without any evident reason or factual base is only irrational -- and it certainly has nothing to do with being "guilty" or not.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 350
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 5:42 am: | |
Robert,
I think your assumptions are well based. I don't believe John Kelly for a minute; if Kate engaged herself in part-time prostitution she couldn't really do it for a longer period without Kelly knowing about it, and it was very common that the men they lived with were "in on it". I myself have actually come across several cases where the man acted as the woman's pimp!
I don't know what to make of this special night, though.
We know that she had left Kelly to seek her daughter (which she didn't find), then she drank up the money she had (and which obviously also was Kelly's money) and was arrested and put in jail.
Before she left the police station she said things that indicated that she was not that keen on going home ("a real good bashing"), maybe because she had lost the money on drink and also came home later than expected. That I think, is one possible reason to why she didn't want to reamin there longer than necessary; she had already been missing from home too long.
I think she then -- although she had a hangover -- decided to try to get the money (we know how) because she didn't want to come home without it. Because she didn't wanted to do it in an area where everbody knew her (and also had heard about the murderer roaming in Whitechapel and wanted to minimize her risks), she went back into the City district.
I do believe John Kelly understood what she was up to, but didn't come forward because he didn't want to get involved.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 85
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 5:48 am: | |
Jeff, (IMO) the killer followed her into the square, not led her. Kate had just been released from BPS, and for whatever reason was bound and determined to head in the opposite direction from where she lived at 01:00 in the morning after sufferning the affects of heavy drinking. I doubt she was in full control of her faculties, nor was she aware of her surroundings (as far as being stalked).
Question is, was the square her destination or a halfway point? I believe it was not the end of the line because had she made arrangements to meet someone, those plans would have gone away when she was arrested as she had no idea when she would be released and the person she made the agreement with would not be standing in the square on a raining night in the hopes she would somehow show back up. That eliminates any sort of pre planned meeting.
That leaves her date with the murderer to chance.
PC Watkins passed through Mitre Square at 01:30, and again at 01:44 at which time he found Kate’s body in the square.
Kate was seen in Duke Street at 01:35 by the men from the Imperial Club in a “friendly conversation with a man where she had her hand on his chest; however, neither man saw her face. [Lawende]: “The woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back...” [Levy]: “I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church-passage, but I did not take any notice of them…”
PC Watkins would have passed into Mitre Square at approx 01:15 and into Duke Street somewhere between 01:15 and 01:30, and again between 01:30 and 01:44 before he found Kate’s body in the square, yet he made no mention of seeing Kate. The PC had been on the force for 17 years and would have recalled if he had seen her at anytime that evening before he found her body. Had she been "working" the Imperial Club, she should have been seen by the PC making his rounds in Duke street either prior to 01:30 or after that before the PC made his way into the square at 01:44 when he found the body.
The PC made no metion of seeing her, anyone fitting her description, or anyone at all working the the area around the club...
Shannon
|
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 86
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 6:00 am: | |
Robert, "Take Kelly's parting warning to Kate, and Kate's assurance that she wouldn't fall into JTR's hands..."
How many others in Whitechapel do you think made this same statement before leaving on an errand, prostitute or not?
In Maryland, USA last year at this time, people were saying the very same thing only about the sniper on the loose...
Kate is in BPS, Kelly knows it. What safer place is there for her? Surrounded by PCs and sobering up. What was he going to do, walk down there and ask to have her released? He also believed she would be back in the morning. Care to talk about the guilt trip me must have gone though afterwards...
Shannon
|
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 87
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 6:28 am: | |
Glenn, when I use the words convict and guilty, they are used in the judicial context and with no conviction or guilty verdict rendered by a court, you of all people should know I do not believe she is guilty...
What I see as disgraceful is you accusing her of being a prostitute when there is no evidence to substantiate your claim, and your belief is based on whether or not she fits your idea of a prostitute based on your "social" theories and not on her real life... so who is the one being judgmental?
Shannon
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 893
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:47 am: | |
Hi Glenn, Shannon
Glenn, I agree with that.
Shannon, I think that if Kelly really did tell Kate to take care, it was because he knew that she was going to try to earn some money as a prostitute that afternoon. Otherwise, why should she fear Jack, who struck in yards, on landings - prostitutes' haunts. This was broad daylight. The Ripper wasn't a sniper.
I agree she wasn't trying to keep an appointment in Mitre Square. And I agree she left BPS in search of money (though there's the outside chance she may earlier have dropped something important and was trying to find it). You say that she wasn't whoring, but was on her way to her daughter's. But Kelly said she was going to see if she could find her daughter. Her daughter had moved. Is it likely that Kate would go off on a big detection job at one in the morning? She'd have either slept the night at BPS, and tried to find her daughter next day, or she'd have left BPS to look for punters. It's possible, of course, that she'd already tried to find her daughter earlier in the afternoon, but if she did, she'd obviously been unsuccessful, and wouldn't have gone back to try again at such an hour.
Kate was short of money. She couldn't hawk anything, because she had no stock, because she had no money.
I'm not surprised no policeman spotted her. She didn't want to be spotted - she'd just got out of BPS, and didn't want to go back there, putting her even further behind schedule.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 351
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 8:02 am: | |
Hello there, Shannon,
"What I see as disgraceful is you accusing her of being a prostitute when there is no evidence to substantiate your claim."
I don't want this to evolve into unnecessary personal pie-throwing, but I believe it is the fact that you obviously look down on these women (as you continue to say things like "accusing" and "guilt") that is the appauling factor here.
I wouldn't dream of using such terminology in connection with these women (juridical context or not -- the choice of words say it all nevertheless), because I see it as very disrespectful. What is so terrible about Kate being a prostitute? Behind my statements lay no personal values -- as in your case.
I would recommend you to search deep inside yourself in order to find the answers to why you have personal problems with what many of us regards as a natural interpretation of the factual circumstances.
I have no "social theories", Shannon. These are your own invention. I simply draw conclusions of the world these women lived in, and also base my analysis on my years of study of such unfortunate women and the social context that was a reality for them. I believe it was worse than we can ever imagine.
In contrast to you, I don't find it necessary to romaticize her and deny the factors in her "real life". I think we owe it to her to see her as she really was and take her life conditions seriously instead of passing judgements about it or make it into a bed of roses.
And by the way, if you believe that Kate had arranged to meet someone (which I see no reason to state with such certainty), then it would nevertheless indicate that she did this for some reason. That reason is obvious to me. What else was she doing there? I'm not so sure she had arranged to meet someone, but I think it's perfectly clear that she went to Mitre Square to get some money to take back home, and in the only alternative way she knew how.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 45
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 8:02 am: | |
Shannon
Very good points over the timing, this has worried me but if you think about it, everything actually slots into place exactly, although if the man Kate was seen with WAS Jack then he must have been incredibly fortunate and cannot possibly have planned things this way.
Watkin's beat starts from Duke Street, and Mitre Square seems to be about the midpoint. If it takes 14 minutes and he was in Mitre Square at 1.30 and 1.44 then we can assume he was also there at 1.16. So Duke Street would have been somewhere half way between this and 1.30, say around 1.22 or 1.23.
Kate left BPS around 1.00, if she is still a little groggy there is no reason why she might not have rested up in various places on her way down Houndsditch and not arrived in Duke Street until say 1.25 by which time Watkin had already passed along.
Watkin's beat takes him into Mitre Square from Mitre Street, he wanders round shining his lamp into the passageways and doorways and exits again the way he came in. This presumably took around 2 or 3 minutes. One of the passageways would have been Church Passage.
However although Lewande says that Kate and the man were on the corner of Duke Street and Church Passage, he does not say exactly where. It is entirely concievable that they were positioned such that even when Watkin shone his lamp down the passage he would not have seen them because his view of them was blocked by the corner. He then passes on.
The two unidentified witnesses mentioned by Monty on another thread saw a man and a woman at the Mitre Square entrance to Church Passage shortly after this. We don't know if this was Kate, or if it was, whether the man was the same one. However it is a reasonable assumption that it was and that Kate came through the passage with this man. Now they would move off together into the square at around the same time that Watkin would be patrolling once again down Duke Street, and again they would not be visible to him through the passage, his view being blocked by a corner.
So yes, Watkin could easily have passed close by Kate and the man twice while patrolling his beat without his ever having seen them. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 711
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 8:05 am: | |
G'day,
The best evidence to suggest that Kate engaged in prostitution that morning, is that she was murdered!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 352
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 8:15 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
A highly valid point. It doesen't have to be said more complicated than that, really! 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 88
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 9:03 am: | |
Leanne & Glenn, Your logic escapes me... Please explain why her being murdered has anything to do with her having been a prostitute? Is it because the others who were murdered were?
Will try your theory and see where it goes...
Assuming for a minute that Kate was working that night as a prostitute as you two have suggested; Kelly said they had spent the last of their money on breakfast and this is also why Kate was going to Bermondsey to see her daughter (or do you chose not to accept this part of his testimony either?), so...
1) Why did Kate have to replace money she didn't have to beging with before returing home? If she started with nothing, shouldn't she end with nothing if she were going to hide the fact she was working the streets behind Kelly's back?
2) If Kelly knew she was working the streets and allowed it, why did she travel all the way across town? Wouild have been better to be closer to home given this case.
3) If Kate were working the streets, why did she get so drunk she got arrested before the nightly crowd had a chance to form to where she could make money?
4) Why did she get so drunk she went to sleep in the street and had to be literally carried by two PCs to the station? This would have made her both and easy mark for a thief, and the killer.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 89
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 9:18 am: | |
Glenn, you couldn't be further from the truth in your accusations! Time to face facts...
You have no basis for your accusations other than she seems to fit your mold of what it takes to become a prostitute. There is a 50/50 or better chance that she never worked the streets, yet you continually state the demographics of others in a similiar situation as fact, and as the basis for your accusations against her, and belittle her by saying is OK for her to have been a prostitute because so many others were.
Personally, I have nothing against prostitutes, only against people such as yourself who claim that she is one based on nothing of factual value. Romantisize, not at all. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, something you seem unable or unwilling to do because it goes againt your theory and for no other reason. You have chosen which testimony to believe, decided she must have been a prostitute, and speak harshly of any who dare to disagree with you.
Shannon |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 290
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 9:42 am: | |
Good afternoon all,
Has St Botolphs been mentioned yet ?
You know, the church next to Aldgate tube station where the prositutes paraded looking for custom in 1888.
Come on, its the one where once you've picked up your punter you toddle off to find a secluded spot......such as mmmmm?
Mitre square across the road !
Monty, who wishes he had the manpower !
 |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 10:14 am: | |
Shannon,
"Personally, I have nothing against prostitutes, only against people such as yourself who claim that she is one based on nothing of factual value. Romantisize, not at all. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, something you seem unable or unwilling to do because it goes againt your theory and for no other reason."
It seems to me that those are pretty harsh words from someone who is willing to accuse a man of being a murderer based on nothing more than a completely speculative and subjective interpertation of his psychology. Why shouldn't Joe being getting the benefit of the doubt as well?
Regards,
John Hacker |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 354
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 10:57 am: | |
Shannon,
OK. Now we're getting somewhere!
Firstly:
"Please explain why her being murdered has anything to do with her having been a prostitute? Is it because the others who were murdered were?"
YES! It doesen't nearly explain it all, but of course it's a crucial fact -- and quite elementary...
Regarding your points:
1) This is absolutely true, and it's a good point. It's correct that they already had used their money on breakfast, but she obviously had some money after all, since she could afford to drink herself totally pissed (excuse my language). Where did that money come from? This could be a memeory lapse on my part, of course, but nevertheless...
I do think she had raised expectations of finding money one way or the other, either from her daughter or in any other way.
No. I have no trouble with this part of Kelly's testimony.
2) I've given you a couple of reasons to this already:
A) She could have heard about the murderer striking in Whitechapel and simply wanted to avoid that territory.
B) I said I believe he knew about it, not that he necessarily liked it or approved of it (although a great deal had no choice, really). According to her own statement at the police station there are strong indications on that she was long due expected at home. She was obviously worried about the fact that she had got drunk and put in jail. We can't naturally say why she said this or if she really meant it to be interpreted that way. But I get the impression that she expected trouble when she got home, and the fact that she did it without any money would most certainly not improve her domestic situation. And she still was found at Mitre Square. Did she go there to sell fish and ships?????????
3) and 4) I have no idea why she got drunk, but she obviously did! Why did all the other prostitutes get drunk and spent their doss money in the pubs instead of using them rationally? Why do you think? Because they were crude alcoholics, lived under poverty and simply didn't care...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 46
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:12 am: | |
Shannon
3) If Kate were working the streets, why did she get so drunk she got arrested before the nightly crowd had a chance to form to where she could make money?
Have you considered the possibility that if she were a. a prostitute and b. a normally respectable woman, maybe she needed to get so drunk she barely knew her own name before she could bring herself to do what had to be done.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 355
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:16 am: | |
Dear Shannon,
I have no trouble with people that disagrees with me, what's making me angry is your condescending way of looking at women who had no other alternative but to prostitute themselves. That I can't accept.
And you still continue to say "accusaions against her". What accusations???? I don't see it that way. Prostitution may be a crime, in a strictly juridic meaning, but in contrast to you I lay no values into this aspect. When I say she most certainly was a prostitute, I don't mean this as an accusation against her. I'm sorry but I think this says more about you than about me or Kate Eddowes.
"You have chosen which testimony to believe, decided she must have been a prostitute..."
There aren't that many testimonies about this matter to choose from...
"Personally, I have nothing against prostitutes..."
"...benefit of a doubt", "accusations against her", "guilty" etc.; what does that choice of words tell you?
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 12:26 pm: | |
Hi All,
Often, after a heavy daytime drinking session, the habitual drinker will fall sound asleep and appear dead to the world, but within a relatively short time will wake up and spend the rest of the night battling with insomnia. I believe this may have been the case with Kate, and her wakefulness would only be made worse by worrying about facing her man after all this time without a penny to show for her absence. What if he finds out she was having a skinful and doing public fire engine impressions when she and her drink money could have gone straight back to him instead, and paid for at least a night’s joint lodgings for the couple?
If Kelly was hoping – if not expecting - that Kate would turn up with funds at some point, it would obviously take any pressure off her if she could now earn – and keep hold of this time - what she had earned and pi**ed against the wall hours earlier. Much easier not to be tempted by the demon drink while still recovering from the last heavy session and the pubs not reopening for quite a while yet.
Hi Shannon,
You ask: ‘Why did she get so drunk she went to sleep in the street and had to be literally carried by two PCs to the station? This would have made her both an easy mark for a thief, and the killer.’
Are you disputing that this is exactly what she did do, and ignored the dangers of being robbed or attacked? She probably couldn’t resist a drink or five at that time of the day and quickly got herself into a state where she was past caring about her personal safety. Perhaps she had to get more drunk than other women, in order to face, or forget, the things she did for men to make a few pennies when no other work was on offer. The difficulty for someone in those shoes would be getting the balance right and not spending all her earnings on getting drunk enough to do what she had to do in order to earn anything at all. Balance was obviously not Kate’s strong point in more ways than one.
But really, this is getting too much, this accusation that we are ‘belittling’ her, or that we are not giving her ‘the benefit of the doubt’ that you are. Only you seem to think it belittling for Kate, or any other woman, to have survived in this way in the East End of the 1880s. Only you think that Kate somehow ‘benefits’ over the other victims if you can show doubt that she ever took money for a sexual service. What if Kate had just teased men she met, allowing them to buy her drinks all afternoon with the suggestion that they might get a kiss or more later? Would you see that as being more ‘innocent’ than taking the money and providing a requested service?
By all means continue your argument for Kate’s plans after leaving the police station. But you can’t use your own perception, that all the rational counter-arguments include a condemnation of her behaviour, to strengthen your case. It is only your perception, and no one else is, as far as I can see, thinking any the worse of Kate whatever she was up to that night.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 6:41 am: | |
Just because there is often a simpler reason for something doesn't always mean that is the case.
Who said that JTR was purely after prostitutes anyway? They were probably his easiest target but that might have been all. They went freely with strange men into dark corners where they had no protection from the police so maybe he only killed them as they were easy prey.
Just because she was a ripper vitim it doesn't necessarily follow that she was a prostitute. Of course she may well have been but none of us will ever know for certain. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 356
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
HI Sarah,
We can't be sure if the Ripper was delibrately after just prostitutes, but you have yourselves pointed at some reasons to why there is a good chance that he was. They were, as you say, easy targets and they led him to dark corners and back-alleys on their own choice, which made them even more vulnarable. Prostitutes are also often home-less and are working under different names, which make them harder to identify, something that also makes it easier for a killer. We must also remember that prostitutes are quite a common or "popular" category of victims in connection with serial killers.
If there are any other, more personal motives behind his choice of victims, we will probably never know for sure. Of this we can only speculate. Regarding Kate Eddowes it is not only just the fact that she was a Ripper victim -- poor woman -- that points at her being a prostitute; there are other factors to consider as well, as some of us here have suggested.
Everything we do here is making assumptions, Sarah -- those we feel are the least or most likely ones.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 897
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 3:54 pm: | |
Hi all
At the inquest, Kelly said that Kate had been previously to her daughter's for money "once last year", which is odd, because by then her daughter had moved. Even if Kelly was confused about the year, and meant "once two years ago", surely Eddowes would have tried in the last two years and realised her daughter had moved. After all, she was so persistent about money that family addresses had to be kept secret from her. But if she had tried to reach her daughter in the last two years, and failed, is she likely to have wanted to tramp over there in the middle of the night on a probable wild goose chase?
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 98
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
I'm afraid worrying about "moral issues" concerning prostitution isn't really evidence. You may find prostitution a disgusting accusation, and that's fine, that's your emotive response to it.
However negative a personal view we may have about such issues won't make prostitution go away or mean "it never happened". East End London in 1888 was habitated by many people who had few options left anymore. Many were alcoholics, many were prostitutes, many were theives, etc.
Just because Kate appears to have been prostituting herself doesn't mean she couldn't have been funny, or jovial, or a good friend, and so on. You seem to think that because she might have been these things, her name shouldn't be "tarnished" with the accusation of prostitute? It's only "tarnished" if you put your moral stamp on it. If you feel, for whatever reason, that Kate was "too good a person to be a prostitute", then maybe your resentment should be focused at the social conditions of times, at a country where the poor were left to fend for themselves, where wages were kept low to ensure profits were high, poor lighting, poor housing, and all the other aspects of the times that resulted in "the wicked quarter mile".
Kate, and all the other women who also occasionally resorted to prostitution just to survive, are not considered by any here as immoral simply because they sometimes sold sexual favours.
Now, if we're going to learn anything about these murders, individually or collectively, we have to not be afraid to see the people as they are. Perhaps the most disrepectful thing we could do to these women's memories is to rewrite them out of history just so we can replace them with characters we like better.
- Jeff |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
