|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 102
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 9:16 pm: |       |
Hi Glenn,
I think we all have a tendency to get frustrated with the Ripper case! It seems to have enough evidence to draw conclusions, but of course, it doesn't really. Through the years people have tried to make tentative suggestions turn into "solid facts", and by doing so present all sorts of bizar "final solutions". This case has been closed so many times, apparently, there are more Rippers than Ripper victims!
Unfortunately, what happens is people get tired of seeing "suggested conclusions" based upon invalid arguements and then end up with an exceptionally powerful emotional response to them. I know I've been careless at times, and I'll post things in language that is "more definate" than it should be. I try to include paragraphs indicating clearly what assumptions I'm building upon, but sometimes I forget. And I know I've responded to some conclusions a bit strongly myself, and could have phrased things in less ... vigorous terms.
Anyway, I suspect that this is just an example of that sort of thing. A bit of evidence was phrased as far being more conclusive than it is. I'm sure, had that value been discussed a bit more as a direct topic, all of us would have agreed that it was overstated, and at most indicates
1) Jack thought Eddowes was a prostitute or
2) Jack widened his target group or
3) Jack never specifically targeted prostitutes, but since he was prowling for victims at night, he just had a greater chance of picking a prostitute by chance.
I think that covers all of the bases?
Anyway, hopefully things can return to a discussion format where everyone can disagree with an interpretation without being disagreeable.
- Jeff |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 99
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 11:18 pm: | |
Glenn, Leanne, ect...
1) ONLY "Jack" knows what his intentions were when it came to selecting his victims.
2) For us today to determine who or what type of person he was after, we have to assess who "Jack" really was first, then look at his motive for selection.
3) There may not be a visible common factor between the victims. Some have assumed it was because they were all prostitutes. Until we know ALL the factors these women had in common, and not just the canonical five victims, but all the women who were murdered under similar circumstances in the time frame of 1887 – 1889 and are able to see a commonality, we may never know what his logic or reasoning was in choosing who was to die, and why.
Shannon |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 103
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 12:50 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
Indeed, only Jack might know his underlying motives. Some would argue that even he may not truely comprehend what was driving him!
I'm not sure what you mean in point 2? Are you saying we need to know who Jack "was" (i.e., have a suspect?) first?
Or, do you mean we have to interpret Jack's behaviour first to try and try to get an understanding of the person who committed the crimes without having a particular suspect in mind? Then we use our "Deduced Jack" (let's call him) and decide what he might have based his selection on? If this is what you mean, then this is basically what criminal profiling tries to do. And it's not entirely accepted, and it's definately not to be viewed as a "solution" by itself. Finally, even those who think it's a worthwhile exercise (and I'm one of them), one has to factor in things like victim information to get anything that even has a chance of being accurate. And, the accuracies are mostly in the form of general traits and discriptions; general classifications or categorisations. Profiling will not ever solve this case by itself, but it may suggest what suspects are worth spending more time researching and what one's are not as likely to be worth the time and effort. And that's all they are intended to do. To the extent they accurately narrow the search space and help an investigation, they are good. I'm not sure anyone knows how well they accomplish this end though.
As for 3, I think you'll find it very hard to get people who study the Jack the Ripper case to all agree on just what set of victims out of the "five" are "Jack's", let alone any of the others. But, let's say that could be done, then what does seem to be a common factor for all of the victims (barring Eddowes since she's the disputed case here) is the fact they were at least causual prostitutes. Other factors of similarity are things like location; London's a big city and these murders are all fairly close together. The murders were generally at night, many around some form of "holiday", etc. Anyway, for this kind of "pattern analysis" and list of commonalities, one needs to first list all the murders under consideration. Then create some sort of checklist. Now, what should be on that checklist? Well, that's the tricky thing because one could include all sorts of things to make them look "more" or "less" connected depending upon what items are in one's list! Still, it might be interesting to try.
- Jeff |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 719
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:24 am: | |
G'day,
GLENN: You read me like a book! Saying that Kate was a prostitute because she was murdered, isn't as silly as it looks. It's staring at the 'bottom line' of the argument, (the final verdict), and working backwards.
There was a guy in Whitechapel murdering women, all of whom earned their living selling the same thing....themselves! He could have stalked his selected victim just long enough to determine she was they right type. This describes an apparent motiveless killer's 'Trolling Phase'.
While in this stage of behaviour, a serial killer is very alert and least likely to make mistakes. Anyway, unless he was 100% sure of Kates 'type', why didn't he just look for someone else? There were plenty to choose from. Which is what I believe he did when he couldn't satisfy his lust for the blood of a 'low-life' in Berner Street!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 374
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 6:21 am: | |
G'day Leanne
I do think the description you give above is a believable one. Kate Eddoewes was evidently murderered and singled out from the crowd for some reason. One could argue, however, that the killer would choose any woman when the opportunities on the site was convinient, but I don't see that as an acceptable enough explanation. I have a feeling he was looking for a special type and that there was some degree of selection (there usually are) -- although we can't be absolutely sure, I for my part think that "type" meant prostitutes and that that is the most natural explanation.
Though I naturally can't disregard the possibility that he was after women in general and then jumped at the chance because these women made it especially convienient for him, my gut feeling (and also the fact that the majority of the women -- in my personal belief all of them -- had prostitution as at least a casual occupation) is opposing this and tells me there lay more of a pattern behind it than that -- although I can't prove it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 375
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 6:55 am: | |
Shannon,
1) Yes, of course, but that is naturally implied, isn't it? On the other hand, that kind of reservations could go for any aspect of the Ripper case, and if we pulled that one as far as it goes, no opinions whatsoever would be presented. We must be able to allow ourselves to draw our personal conclusion from what we've got, or else we won't get anywhere. Then it just becomes ridiculous.
2) I actually believe it is the other way around, Shannon. In order to find out who or what he was, victimology is an important factor in addition to studying the crime scenes or the witness statements. Doing it backwards is in my experience a bit more awkward. According to criminal profiling, victimology is one of the methods used to gain information about the character of the killer and about his crimes. I prefer to do it this way.
3) I do think there are commonalities between the women, Shannon. Some say they knew each other, some -- like myself -- simply believe the link is that they most likely were prostitutes. None of these suggestions can be proven for sure, but if we don't assume and don't believe in the patterns we see, there will be no deductions whatsoever. I for my part think the pattern is strong enough to draw some personal conclusions (that don't necessarily have to be the right ones) about his motives and behaviour -- or at least to have some opinions about it. That's all.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 5:39 am: | |
Does it matter whether any of the victims were prostitutes?.Is there a common denominator that details why they were killed?.
It is not how they earned their money,but how they spent it,that led most of them to be in the situation they were on the night of their deaths.
It is not neccessary that the killer approached victim with offers of money for sex,or they offering sex for money.That they had a drinking problem seems beyond doubt,that each and every one was a prostitute is not so well defined.
I have known such women as the victims.Homeless,
deprived,of poor circumstance,but not prostitutes.
There have been other periods since Victorian days that were just as harsh,but women survived without offering themselves for money.I am on Bob Hinton's side,I do not believe Eddowes was prostituting herself,nor was it the only means she could be lured into Mitre Square.
Glen,you may have studied a large number of women presumed to be prostitutes,some of us have encountered a large number of women who were presumed to be prostitutes but were not.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 9:43 am: | |
Hi All,
If there is any truth in the contemporary report that Kate thought she knew who Jack was, (and some now speculate that she was engaged on some sort of reward-earning mission on leaving the police station, and not looking for any paying customer), wouldn't this in itself suggest she at least associated with prostitutes and men she knew to be customers?
Under what circumstances could Kate have believed she knew the man who had been ripping up prostitutes, and felt uniquely qualified to find and identify him to police and claim the reward, if she had never herself been involved with any prostitute/client relationships or situations?
If, on the other hand, the original report was an invention (on the part of someone who presumably thought Kate's way of life lent itself to a story about her having encountered Jack at some point), we still need a reasonable alternative explanation for her going to Mitre Square and falling victim to Jack.
Love,
Caz |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 377
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 10:18 am: | |
Hi Harry,
Yes I do think it matters whether they were prostitutes or not. The more we know about the victims, the more we learn about the offender and the crime itself.
The money the spent is not that much an issue as their life-styles in a whole. Working as a prostitute means that you are exposing yourself to enourmous risks, and that also makes you an easier target for a presumed offender. The basis for this is your way of life, the methods you use in your occupation etc. -- like walking alone after dark, on many occasions being intoxicated by alcohol or drugs and -- most important -- the fact that the work itself requires contacts with strangers in unprotected situations (contacts where you yourself approaches the stranger or leading him into an environment that is unsafe for your own protection), something that makes you a high risk victim.
By seeing this pattern one can more easily understand the murder acts and the constitution and methods of the killer, especially in cases (like Jack the Ripper) where the crime scene doesn't reveal enough -- or conflicting -- information. So yes, it is important whether they were prostitutes or not, but since we only can make subjective interpretations of a few remaining pieces from the puzzles, we can never establish it for sure -- just assume it and using our own logic.
Of course, being an alcoholic alone puts you at risk by itself, but that doesen't explain all of the circumstances of the attacks and the choice of victims. If one is disputing that some of the victims were prostitutes, then one must give an acceptable explanation to why the women in question were chosen as targets and why the crimes were committed in the way they were; if that can't be done, then we are left with nothing.
I have also known such women (and that aren't prostitutes either), Harry, but you must look at the historical context and the life style, conventions and social conditions of that age -- to refer to how we live today, and use that as a measurement in connection with crimes committed over hundred years ago, is totally useless.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 10:23 am: | |
So Mr Anderson,
After all your waffle and bluster do I take it you don't have a single solitary fact to show that Eddowes was a prostitute?
Every other victim was acknowledged to be engaged in prostitution but not Eddowes. Why then in the absence of any indication that she was do you insist on labelling her as such?
I accept deductions are made on the back of often incomplete evidence and facts - but in this case you do not have a single solitary indication or fact that she was a prostitute, you are simply saying that because most east end prostitutes were, poor, homeless and alchoholic, and Eddowes was poor homeless and alcholholic ergo she is a prostitute! Thats like saying I have a black dog therefore all black animals are dogs!
Climb down out of the clouds for a moment Mr Crime Historian and take a rational look at what you are saying!
Bob Hinton |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 378
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
Hi Caz,
I can't remember at the moment where that statement you refer to originated from, but as far as I know it was never confirmed by a second source. Still, it's an interesting story as it presents an alternative explanation to why she appeared at Mitre Square. I don't have a clue how Kate would have gained this kind of information in the first place, but it smells too much of a conspiracy story to me. But nothing is impossible...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 56
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 10:45 am: | |
Glenn and Caz
From the East London Observer, 13th October
An Extraordinary Incident.
A reporter gleaned some curious information from the Casual Ward Superintendent of Mile End, regarding Kate Eddowes, the Mitre-square victim. She was formerly well-known in the casual wards there, but had disappeared for a considerable time until the Friday preceding her murder. Asking the woman where she had been in the interval, the superintendent was met with the reply, that she had been in the country "hopping". "But," added the woman, "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." "Mind he doesn't murder you too" replied the superintendent jocularly. "Oh, no fear of that," was the remark made by Kate Eddowes as she left. Within four-and-twenty hours afterwards she was a mutilated corpse.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 379
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 11:01 am: | |
Dear Mr Hinton,
I have absolutely no idea why your using such an arrogant approach in a discussion, but I'm afraid it doesen't give you any benefits whatsoever regarding your character. I have no interests in taking part in dicussions in that tone of voice. As for high horses, I have no idea what you're talking about. Compared to may others here I am a complete novise to the case. But I think I am entitled to use the experiences I've gained on other occasions and pointing them out -- since you obviously believe I'm making everything up out of nowhere and of basis of nothing. I'm not doing that to heave myself in any way.
However, no, it has never been fully established that Stride was a prostitute (not by those who knew her in London) -- just estimated. I for my part think that is most probable since she already had convictions for it in Sweden. The fact remains that she lived under similar cicumstances as Eddowes. But then you assume that Stride wasn't a prostitute either? And what about Mary Kelly, who lived with Joseph Barnett?
No, I have no proof (nor does anyone else), but if you can't see the "indications" presented, I believe there is not that much I can do about it. Yes, she could very well be an ordinary woman with alcohol problem, but once again: give me an acceptable explanation to what she did on Mitre Square and what evidence you have to present that suggests her not being a casual prostitute. Looking at the circumstances, I feel it to be more plausible to assume that she like the others were occuping herself occasionally with prostitution when necessary -- I see no facts or reasons to totally exclude that possibility. I've already given you the basis for my opinions (although you only presented some of them) and I believe they tell me enough in order to form my own opinion -- which I expect you to allow me to do.
That part about "abscence of any indication", is something you may state as your own interpretation of things, but I don't agree with you -- you on the other hand, choose not to deduct at all, but that is your call.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 380
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 11:05 am: | |
Thank you, Alan.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 136
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 11:29 am: | |
Hi Caz
Further to what Alan posted above, some newspaper reports credited the story to the Superintendent of Shoe Lane casual ward.
There was also a possibillity mentioned in the Daily Telegraph 1st October That the murderer of Catherine Eddowes, arranged to meet her at Mitre Square. The reason being that all couples were supposed to be stopped by the City Police.
Since Catherine Eddowes was Hop picking in Kent for most of September, I wonder where she got the information that she may have known who the Whitechapel murderer was. And would she have arranged to meet him by herself?
All the best
Rob |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 294
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 12:06 pm: | |
Folks,
Rob has just jogged a memory for me.
He states that the police were stopping couples.
I remember reading somewhere that the actual act of procuring sex for money was not illegal in 1888.
The Police were arresting the prostitues on a loitering charge. This means that business could be agree to on the 'hoof' so to speak.
A few questions/pointers on that.
Is this correct of have I been misinformed ?
If it is correct then Kates meeting in Mirte sq would have been a bit risky when you consider that Watkins and Harvey patrol the square and passages. I mean, how would she explain that one ?
Would it be reasonalbe to assume Kate knew about this law ?? .....on the game or not.
That said, Lewande spotted what is presumed to be Kate and a man static in Duke st.
I know this is a pointless post but I can think of better places to meet someone than a dark secluded square.
Monty
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 12:57 pm: | |
Hi All,
I wasn't saying I believed the rumour about Kate saying she thought she knew Jack.
But if anyone wants to speculate that Kate wasn't trying to find a customer that night, but may have instead been going to Mitre Square because of some inside knowledge about the ripper's identity, it certainly wouldn't follow that she never engaged in even casual prostitution. The inside knowledge must have come from somewhere, if she had any, and there are only so many ways that she could have come by it.
We may have no proof that she did prostitute herself, but it would be impossible to prove that she didn't. Just something to bear in mind if one is arguing that she didn't, and concluding that she must therefore have had another reason for ending up in Mitre Square with the ripper.
Love,
Caz |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 137
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:07 pm: | |
Hi Monty
I think you are correct. I can't remember the exact law, but I remember going on one of Donald Rumbelow's 'Jack the Ripper' walks and he mentioned that prostitutes had to walk around St Botolphs Church as they weren't allowed to stand and loiter. Perhaps if a meeting was arranged it was for a spot where Jack knew Catherine Eddowes would have to walk through Mitre Square and he suprised her.
Rob |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 138
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:17 pm: | |
Hi Caz
Just saw your post.
I believe Catherine Eddowes went in the direction of Mitre Square for some purpose other than to prostitute herself. If she was, I think she would have done so in the Dorset Street/Commercial Street area, as she was staying in Fashion Street at the time. On leaving Bishopsgate Police station Catherine Eddowes goes in the opposite direction to where she was staying, was she going to meet someone? who knows.
Rob |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | |
As regards Catherine Eddowes, I vaguely remember a small blip surfacing some years ago where her daughter mentioned in a statement to the press or police her mother's previous illicit relationship with a policeman.
I never followed this up and should have done really.
I've always sat on the fence as regards her 'unfortunate' status, for it is hard to imagine a prostitute walking all the way down to Kent to pick some hops when she could have much more easily stayed in Whitechapel and picked some cops. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 381
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:27 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
Considering that this happened during the hight of the Ripper scare, couldn't the fact that she with most certainty knew about the killer raging in Whitechapel (and therefore wanted to avoid that area) be one possible explanation to why she went back into in the City district? Just a question...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 382
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:35 pm: | |
Hi AP,
I don't think selling your body was something you did unless you had any other alternatives -- especially if you didn't have it as a full time profession; hop-picking was a popular way of earning some extra buck if you belonged to the poor -- and you also got away from the city slum for a few days to get some fresh air. Not such a bad deal -- if you managed to pick enough to raise enough money (which Kate and John Kelly obviously didn't).
Can't say I remember such a statement (about the illicit relationship with a police man). Interesting nevertheless.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Clack
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 139
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
Hi Glenn
Good question, but was it the height of the Ripper scare? I think interest in the Whitechapel murders was beginning to die down (pardon the pun) and it took the Double event to bring it back to the fore again. Just a thought
All the best
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 383
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:54 pm: | |
Hi Rob,
Could be; I know things were beginning to cool off for a bit on some occation, so you could be right. However, I do believe Nichol's and Chapman's murders were in people's minds nevertheless -- especially of those who were in the same trade as the targets.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 104
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 1:56 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I've always figured that if Kate knew who Jack was, when she was arrested for drunkeness she would have made such a claim in order to try and get out of jail. Either when picked up, or when she woke up later. They may not have believed her, of course, but one would expect the police to recall her saying so after she was found murdered. Although one might not expect them to advertise this to the press, for the obvious reasons, one might expect to see some sort of inquires to be made amongst her friends to see if she told any of them.
Of course, one could argue she just didn't mention it, but this doesn't seem very likely. It just seems to be a good bargaining tool for release. And, she doesn't seem to have actually done it because the police actions don't seem to be following it up. Finally, I suppose if she really did know, then she wouldn't have followed this person into Mitre Square. And nothing indicates she didn't enter with the person voluntarily.
Anyway, nothing seems to indicate that Eddowes had a "real" suspect, and nothing seems to indicate that if she did she told the police about it or that she was right about her suspicions.
- 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.
|
|
|
|
