|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 297
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 11:45 am: |       |
Bob,
Firstly, Im with you. Until we have concrete evidence its grossly unfair to label Kate as a prostitute. Just as it is to label Sickert or George as Jack.....tongue in cheek...tongue in cheek, honest !
You are the only one that has given me a reason (other than prostitution) for Kate to be in the square. Do you think that it was an extremely naive move on her part ? To put herself alone, in a dark square.....you all know how it goes, Ive typed it enough times.
What did she expect ? Oh, fair enough, heres yer bung.
Monty
 |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 67
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 11:48 am: | |
Bob
You believe that there was a very good reason. But just like everyone else, you don't have proof that she did.
I don't see the whole blackmail theory. I tend to look at the most obvious answers for things before going for convoluted reasoning.
The most obvious reason for a man and a woman to go together into a dark deserted square at gone half past one in the morning at that period in history is that they were prostitute and client. Therefore that's what I believe was happening.
If you can show me evidence why what you believe is more likely than what I believe then I am perfectly willing to be swayed. If not, then why is your opinion any more valid than anyone elses? |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 400
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 12:07 pm: | |
Bob,
"All I'm getting from Andersson and the like is 'Well others like her were prostitutes - so that's it!"
That just shows how bad you read my posts -- if you read them at all. Since my efforts in trying to explain my opinions to you in detail obviously is in vain, I see no point in carrying out that intent.
And once again, noone is accusing Eddowes of anything. It is only you and a couple of others who interprets this "labeling" as an accusation. I happen to like Catherine Eddoes very much -- in fact, I have the greatest respect and sympathy for her and I myself have no emotional or moral problems with accepting prostitution in connection with such conditions as were a reality in the East End, in order to survive. It is those who do, who do these women most harm in that respect. To "label" someone as a prostitute during those circumstances is not the same as accusing soemone of being a killer, not in a million years.
Furthermore, it is not up to anyone here to prove anything whatsoever; the circumstances are such that this is impossible, you know that as well as I do (since Jeff have spoken highly of you as a researcher and contributor, I expect that that doesen't come as a surprise to you -- regardless of which point we are trying to push). But if you believe that the implications are stronger in favour of conspiracy stories -- for which there are no substance in whatsoever -- than the possibility that she was murdered because she was a casual prostitute (which may not be the actual truth when it comes down to it, but nevertheless is the logical and natural explanation), then by all means -- be my guest. I still haven't seen any of those "implications", though... But I'll be happy to do so anytime.
That being said, I am very well content with the fact that we may agree to disagree.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 12:45 pm: | |
To "label" someone as a prostitute during those circumstances is not the same as accusing soemone of being a killer, not in a million years.
Quite, Glenn.
I'd be interested in hearing from others why it is ok to write a book labelling a suspect as a violent murderer without sufficient evidence, but not ok to argue on these boards, in the absence of evidence of blackmail or other options, that a victim may have been trying to offer Jack a sexual service shortly before he killed her and mutilated certain parts of her anatomy.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 1:10 pm: | |
Sorry Folks
but I still think you are looking at the hop-picking business in much the same way that people living in London at the time of the German raids look back in fondness to the days and nights they spent hunched up in the underground avoiding the bombs. The reality was horrific, harsh and absolutely no fun, however the memory tends to look back at such events with fondness and gladness.
To walk to Kent, and then sleep rough for four weeks in the September chill to awake every morning for the back breaking task of hop-picking does not sound like much fun, especially when you arrive back in Whitechapel on foot - am I mistaken or did they only have one pair of shoes between them? - without a penny to your name for all your hard labours.
I will study this hop-picking lark and get back to you.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 282
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 1:38 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
Ok Glenn, I said it was no secret and it was for all to see, and as it is proberly not even one per cent of our books contents, I will gladly make it known,
We all know of the horrible mutalations to Eddowes, but there was also indication that she had been seized tightly by the left hand, hense the round circular bruise between her thumb and first finger, which was of recent origin.
There are possible theorys for this,
1] she was pulled up by her left hand from the pavement , when arrested.
2]she was dragged by the hand from church passage by force [ if so the killer would have had to stifle her attempts to cry out, Possible....
3]She was led into the square, but the killer was pulling her along in a hurry.
4] she entered the square alone, and was attacked as she approached the corner of the square, and the killer grasped her hand, with his right hand muffling any attempt to cry with his left, and pulled her in the direction where she was found.
I Feel that bruise, might yield a clue. on possible events that night,
There is also Mrs cox neices statement made not that many years ago, which adds one intresting point, that being she said her aunt said that the person she saw with kelly in the early hours of the 9th nov[ blotchy face?.] seemed to fit a similar pattern. Kelly was heard to say ' All right my love , dont pull me along' Indicating that this gent was pulling Kelly along the passage, rather roughly.
Obviously the last observation I dont like getting too suspicious about , because it has nothing to do with Barnett, who Mrs cox knew well. although Her statement is highly dubious , and our book will present a different insight regarding that point.
So there we are Glenn, off my chest, hopefully valid points, I try to explore every avenue.
Regards Richard. |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 112
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 2:01 pm: | |
Richard, she wasn't dragged by the PC when arrested. She was barely cognitive, so much so that it took TWO PCs to assist her to the station (they nearly carried her the distance).
Next point to consider: neither of the men (Lawende, "woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back. She had one hand on his breast...." Levy, "I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church-passage, but I did not take any notice of them...") actually saw that it was Kate, only assumed so by the clothing she was wearing which was a common black bonnet and jacket she was wearing in a place Levy himself described as.” I think it was badly lighted then..."
So two of the three men coming from a club, not paying that much attention to a couple where they never saw her face, only dark clothing in a dimly lit area believes it was Kate. Concern should be made about the lack of testimony by Mr. Harris. Since the first two witnesses saw nearly nothing and the third didn't even testify it really raises the question about how reliable these two are in identifying Kate. It may have been nothing more than them reading the paper about the murder, realizing they were near the square and looking back, believing it was the same person who was murdered, wanting to be a good Samaritan and came forward to give the best description of the man she was with in the belief it was the woman who was murdered.
The plot thickens...
Shannon
|
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 2:07 pm: | |
Right then,
I've investigated hop-picking and submit the following personal recollection.
I would stress that this is from a Londoner who 'hopped' in the late 1920's, therefore conditions in the LVP would have been far more primitive.
I fear some of you may well have to have your rose-tinted spectacles surgically removed.
This was slave labour akin to the cotton fields of the southern USA.
'Before the introduction of machines hop picking was the task of many Londoners. Most of them came from the slum areas of the City, and for them hop picking was their annual holiday. Hop picking was a dirty job, poorly paid, and monotonous, but in spite of this we, as kids, looked forward to the season with great excitement. About May time the "'opping" pots were taken from the cupboard where they had been stored since the previous October. The primus stove and countless other necessities were cleaned and polished ready to be packed into tea chests.
Mum said to me as the time grew near, "Go in see Muvver Cohens, ask 'er to save me two tea chests, doan fergit to say please or she won't let me 'ave 'em; tell 'er I want 'em fer 'opping".
Mrs Cohen was a mean one. I was always a bit afraid of her with her piercing eyes and acid tongue. In spite of my fear I ran into the little shop to ask for the chests. I ran all sorts of errands to help with the preparation, my sisters too, as we loved our three or four weeks stay in Kent.
Hop picking during these times was a primitive life. Each family was given a wooden hut about 10 feet square to live in. Quite often there were as many as fourteen in one household and if the mother were lucky enough she'd be given two huts. If not they did their best with one.
True we were used to overcrowded conditions in London, although even if we had to share a lavatory with half a dozen other families, at least we were used to this small luxury. We also had our weekly bath in the local Corporation Baths. During our stay in Kent we had neither. If nature was so thoughtless as to wake us up in the night, we had to walk a couple of hundred yards to the "thunder box", a hut about 3 feet wide and 2 feet long, dodging patches of dung left by thoughtless cows. Added to this we had to keep our eyes open for stinging nettles, thistles and prickly hedges. A plank of wood served as a seat in this so called "lav": a big gaping smelly hole underneath. We kids had a fear of falling in to the cavity.
The only water supply was through a field half a mile long. By the time we arrived back at the hut, half the water had slopped into our Wellington boots. This meant a ticking off from mum.
In spite of the lav', poor water supply and other inconveniences we were always keen to join the crowds of pickers on London Bridge Station. Around September the platforms were teeming with cockneys bent on earning a few bob in the hop fields of Kent.'
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 403
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 2:51 pm: | |
Hi AP,
Well, I think that description very well fits the one I pictured myself. Seem to me not very different from the slave labour in the textile factories that we know was one of the few available ways of earning an extra buck. And as I said, compared to prostitution, I don't see hop-picking as a bad alternative [correction from my previous line "I don't see it as that much worse", to avoid misunderstandings].
And regardless it's circumstances, hop-picking was appearently a frequent phenomenon -- that can hardly be disputed, and we know Eddowes and John Kelly went hop-picking. I really don't see the problem; noone here has to my knowledge described it as a charter trip or a bed of roses. But thanks for the interesting account nevertheless.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 113
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 2:56 pm: | |
Glenn, "And as I said, compared to prostitution, I don't see it as that much worse."
While both were hard, one was LEGAL! Which would you choose, honest back breaking work out in the country, or something that might land you in jail, or worse, land you with a "social condition?"
Shannon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 404
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 3:06 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Thank you for that.
I must admit, though, that it was a bit of an anti-climax. As you yourself point out, there are quite a few explanations to choose from regarding that round marks. I am not a medical expert, so I can't value how recently those marks could have been made, but anyway, regarding your four theories:
1) I think Shannon has a point here; I don't believe she was dragged by the PC in that manner;
2) Shannon has a point again; we can't be sure that the woman seen by witnesses near Church Passage really was Eddowes, although it's possible;
3) Questionable. We don't have any witness acounts supporting that; even if it's plausible, it is still speculation and a bit risky behaviour from the offender's part;
4) This interpretation I think could actually be a possible one to explain the circular bruises! But it is a bit from your original statement that she had been dragged to Mitre Square from someplace else...
Thanks for the courtesy of revealing the information nevertheless.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 405
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 3:15 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
My point as well. I think you misunderstood me. AP argued that hop-picking was far worse than we here had described it to be and wondered if it really was that attractive compared to prostitution or other labour.
I argued that he probably was right in his description of the hop-picking but that prostitution must have been just as bad, if not worse. So I would personally choose back-breaking hop-picking anytime. I don't think we disagree on that point, really, Shannon (unless I have totally misunderstood you, that is...).
By the way, just a remark, didn't you people here on the board just say earlier that prostitution in itself wasn't illegal in Britain in 1888? Just checking.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 114
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 3:55 pm: | |
Glenn, Prostitution was not considered a crime in Victorian England. Police could only make an arrest if the prostitutes' solicitation created a public disturbance. The laws were enforced differently depending on which side of town the disturbance took place. On the west end of London, there was little tolerance for “ladies of the evening” however due to social conditions on the east end it was often overlooked.
Best way for the ladies to avoid arrest was to keep moving. So they made rounds of the pubs, selected clients, provided their service, and returned to their area to repeat the process.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 115
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 4:00 pm: | |
Glenn, your right about the hop picking. It is what I would have chosen to get out of the slums and see some country if even for a short time. You notice the description of it being dirty work; but, also it being a holiday. For us, it might seem like very unattractive work, but then we dont come from the slums where anything that takes you away or your mind off of where you are is an improvement in the quality of life over what you have... (its the reason for the number of alcoholics in the slums regardless of where or when they exist)
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
Hi Glenn.
I have never said she was dragged from somwhere else.
For the record, I believe on leaving BPS, she shortly encounted a sailor , who walked with her on her journey to a possible meeting place, which the police may well have been observing, and she for safety reasons was followed from the station, on reaching Mitre square the sailor figure tried to perswade Eddowes to enter the square for sex,she politely refused, at this time the officer following who had lost the couple he was observing, approached Bleinkensop, The sailor figure then gave up his quest with Eddowes, and she not wanting to follow behind him , proceeded to cut through the square, and continue her journey to the arranged meeting spot, and it was shortly before she reached the south west corner, her worst fears happened, she was grapped , muffled and slaughtered. for her killer was in the square.
In the words of a old thirties song ' He picked himself up , dusted himself off, and started over again'
Richard. |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 109
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
I understand where the frustration comes from as well, but when you get the time I think you'll find we've been chatting about all sorts of suggestive evidence that point towards prostitution. And, in general (if not in each and every post), everyone is pretty good to indicate that what is presented is not intended as the "final solution"; even about this particular thread issue.
However, it does get cumbersome and repetitive to keep saying "suggestive" and other such qualifiers. And yes, sometimes arguements are made that, after they get tossed around a bit, turn out not to be as strong as one originally hoped. Goodness knows I've had to retract a few statements for just such a reason!
Anyway, I'm interested in your blackmail explanation. Without knowing the details, of course, it's hard to comment. However, with nothing more to go on there are the following hurdles that obviously need to be cleared. I'm assuming, of course, that the gist of the blackmail argument is that Kate has arranged a meeting with someone whom she's going to blackmail as Jack the Ripper? Of the top of my head I can think of 4 broad ways such a theory could progress
1) Kate absolutely knows this person is Jack the Ripper
2) Kate is just going to accuse someone of being Jack to get money out of them (but that person isn't)
3) Kate is going to accuse someone of being Jack and, though she's not really aware of this, it turns out to be true.
4) The blackmail isn't about being Jack the Ripper but something else.
Now, inherent in the scenerio (based upon your saying she had a good reason to be there, presumably at that time) is that the meeting was arranged.
However, the first hurdle to overcome is that Kate doesn't appear to be in any particular rush to get out of jail. She wakes up, quietly sings, inquires as to when she can leave, but didn't seem to push things to be let out. She wasn't acting like someone who had an arranged meeting, even after being told the time. It also doesn't explain where she got the money to get drunk on, or why she appeared to be talking quite cozily (assuming it was her who was spotted, of course). Testimony is specific that her placing her hand on the chest of the fellow wasn't to "push him away". Seems an odd way to hold a blackmail discussion.
Depending upon which of the above 4 "styles", given the "time and place" of this meeting, I think we can rule out number 1. Kate's not going to try and blackmail "the real Jack the Ripper" (actually, he would be Leather Apron at this point in time) in a dark and secluded location, etc. So I think we can rule out Kate actually thinking Mr. X really is "Leather Apron".
Number 2 requires one to then assume Kate Eddowes is not a victim of the same killer as Nichols and Chapman (and possibly Stride). I'm not sure the evidence supports this conclusion and of all the victims the greatest consensus has always been Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes are by the same person. Regardless, number 2 requires "two Jacks" for at least these 3 murders.
Number 3 gets around the new killer problem, but is faced with the remarkable low probability that Kate somehow picked "the right Jack" even though she thought she had the "wrong Jack" (thinking she had the right Jack goes back to number 1). How one could prove this from the evidence we have, well, I'm pretty sure there is more support for the "prostitution" theory than there could be for this situation (as listed in the earlier posts). I've only included it for completeness. In fact, all aspects could be exactly the same but the reason for the meeting. If Kate arrange to meet for prostitution purposes with the "real Jack" (who, it turns out is not her suspect, although she may have had one) the same story emerges. What's needed is something that proves she was going to blackmail someone. Without that evidence, the suggestive evidence for prostitution that we've been tossing around will outweigh the blackmail theory.
Finally, number 4 includes some other unknown reason for blackmail unrelated to the murders. Now, if Mr. X is "the real Jack" as well, we end up with similar logical hurdles as number 1 or 3, which I think can probably be ruled out. That again makes Mr. X. "not the real Jack", so we're ending up with the hurdles of number 2.
With nothing more to go on, I will guess that you're thinking that Kate was not killed by the same person as Nichols and Chapman? As with number 3, however, perhaps the most critical aspect to the scenerio is the evidence that Kate was going to blackmail someone. I don't recall anyone saying she had that plan in mind? There's something about her planning on collecting the reward, but if that were her intention, I would think that card would have been played while in jail as a way to try and get out. Since she didn't do that, it looks more like that statement doesn't amount to much.
It would be interesting, however, to have a summary presentation. I'm mostly curious just to see if I'm at all close to what your thinking with these fairly broad and generalised presentations.
Could be I've entirely missed a "situation style", or have ruled out some situations too hastily (I'm doing this off the top of my head here, not really spending enough time to really be sure if 1 and 3 can be ruled out that easily).
Anyway, depending upon whether or not you have the time to sort of "lead the debate", a new thread might be warrented? I'm sure you've found there are even more hurdles than those that first came to my mind, and I would be interested to see how they are overcome. As you say, the evidence will be suggestive only at times, but nobody really is expecting more than some reasonable connection to the information we actually have.
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 406
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 6:51 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
Yes I agree with you totally on the hop-picking as well.
Regarding the prostitution facts, it seems that I had understood it right, and I also think your description of it feels correct. I just asked the question because your line "While both were hard, one was LEGAL! Which would you choose, honest back breaking work out in the country, or something that might land you in jail..." seemed to indicate that you meant that prostitution was illegal, but that could be a Freudian slip on your part or a misunderstanding on mine.
Rats, it's not easy discussing on a second language.
Interesting nevertheless, since it was a fellany in its own right here in Scandinavia and therefore illegal (although loitering or public disturbance was the most common charge, since prostitution in itself was hard to prove for the police -- a prostitution charge practically required that the women were caught bare handed during the act).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 110
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 8:12 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
I can't believe what I've forgotten! I recall your suspect now is George Hutchinson (the British version)! Personally, I agree that he should be considered near the top of the suspect list. I've never seen, however, a complete version of your entire theory. It seems to me, however, that Kate as "blackmailer" should not be necessary to the theory (again, I'm speaking without enough knowledge here) and may even fit "less well" in some ways. There is some reference to Eddowes having slept near MJK's residence, but I'm not so sure this is considered as real? If it is considered as valid evidence, though, since GH admits to knowing MJK, it's possible he's seen Eddowes near MJK's residence on one occasion. Now, if he happened to recognise her, and she's soliciting, and he knows he's going to get MJK sooner or later, then taking out Eddowes might strike him as necessary (especially if she recognised him as MJK's friend, let's say). Anyway, this very very speculative chain of events, which I admit includes prostitution, would explain why she's not afraid to go into the dark secluded area. It also, at least, doesn't involve blackmail, or planned meetings, which seem to lead to a fair number of complications (none of which are insurmountable)
Anyway, sorry about that. I've not been able to get a copy of your book, so forgive my ignorance. I should try and order one in as my interest is now peaked!
- Jeff |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 116
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 4:52 am: | |
Jeff, adding to your theories about the blackmail:
Kate is going to blackmail someone for a reason other than them being Jack. This assumes the person being blackmailed is of a class with means to pay. The word of a gentleman would be taken without question over that of an "unfortunate" and Kate’s claims would be dismissed out of hand without physical evidence.
Kate is going to blackmail someone, claiming they are "Jack" when they are not. Kate would have had to believe the person she is blackmailing would pay her a sum for her to just go away. Problem with this is that it opens up to a continual demand on Kate's part, with an increase in the amount of money in time. For this scenario to work the one doing the blackmail has to remain anonymous. Kate going to meet the person precludes this.
Kate is going to blackmail someone, claiming they are "Jack" when she believes they are not, and in reality they are. Kate makes her demands known; the person she is blackmailing can either comply with her demands or kill her before she spreads the word about him being the killer. If he complies Kate may suspect he really is the killer and try to collect even more money. He would have to kill her for fear of her opening her mouth when she had enough to drink. If Kate suspected the person was the killer, she wouldn’t have entered the darkened square with him to get her money.
Kate is going to blackmail the real "Jack" and she knows it. Again, Kate makes her demands known. Kate knows who the killer is, the killer knows who Kate is as well. He would have to make arrangements to meet her in a public place where they could negotiate the price of the blackmail. For this to work, Kate and the killer had to meet earlier in the day before she was arrested. Kate would have made arrangements to meet him later, after he had time to collect the money and return to the location to pay her. If this were the case she would not have gotten drunk and risked missing the opportunity to collect the money.
Whether Kate believed them to be the killer or someone she just wanted money from, if it were Jack, the person would have had to wait for her to return and couldn’t risk leaving until after his transaction has been completed with Kate, which interferes with Liz's murder. So, if Liz was killed by the Ripper, this won’t work either. If Liz was killed by someone else and the killer did wait for Kate to return to conclude their business, it would have taken place in the club, and not in the darkened square. Since Kate went at least to the opening of the passage to the square without a struggle, this also fails.
From what I can see, any sort of blackmail scenario has a low probability of being what happened that night considering there are a number of viable options accounting for Kate’s actions that do work under the conditions that lead to her death…
Shannon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 409
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 8:34 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
Indeed very excellent points and great reasoning regarding the black-mail theories. I totally agree with your conclusions here. Your five stars are well earned for that one.
In short, the problem with this "scam" scenario is the risks Kate would have exposed herself to by setting up or agreeing on such an arrangement, a detail that worried me right from the start. Like what's earlier been indicated here, a public place or a pub would have been the safest or more natural location for such a transaction, not a dark and empty square. Kate Eddowes may have been depserate for money one way or the other, but she was probably no idiot and -- according to what's been said about her regarding her personality -- she seem to have been quite an intelligent woman. Prostitute or not, she would know her way around enough not to indulge herself in dangerous schemes like that.
The fact that she got herself completely drunk the same night also reveals a serious problem. One could argue, that she did this simply because she had problems with alcohol and as an alcoholic she would (in a typical irrational manner) drink herself pissed in order to calm herself down and to get the courage to perform the operation. I believe, though, that this feels somewhat speculative and is to stretch the scenario a bit just in order to make the circumstances fit.
The scenario can't be excluded totally, of course, but like many other conspiracy stories, it becomes a bit too complicated and unreasonable, and I believe as well that the possibility for this being a probable explanation for Eddoes's appearence in Mitre Square has too many logical flaws.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 415
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 9:32 am: | |
Hi All,
I still don't see how any blackmail scenario fits with Bob's argument that Eddowes never engaged in even casual prostitution.
If she spent all her time trying to get money for drink, food and lodgings by visiting a daughter who had moved (was this her cover story every time she went off by herself for a binge? She could have used the story again and again as long as she returned eventually with a bit of money that she could claim to have borrowed); or by doing odd cleaning jobs; or by seasonal hop-picking - I have to wonder how she is supposed to have met Jack (assuming he is her blackmail victim) and concluded that he was the man going round ripping up women who, unlike herself, earned their drink money by meeting men like him and letting them get 'friendly' in dark corners.
I'd love to know how this is all meant to add up.
Love,
Caz
|
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 934
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 3:47 pm: | |
Hi all
Even if Eddowes knew something, I don't see what she could hope to gain by blackmailing Hutchinson. It isn't as if he was rolling in it.
Much better for her to pop into the first London police station she passes on her way back from Kent, and put her name down for the reward.
If she really did know something, it would have been stupid to brag about it, as not only might Jack hear (though some might say that was the intention) but also she would have been inviting people to try and get the information out of her, if they believed her.
If she did make the remark, it may have been just to try and get a few free drinks at the bar in return for her story.
Robert |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 111
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
Hi,
Good point Shannon! Indeed, I had overlooked the oddity of the blackmailer actually meeting with the target in person, regardless of which scenerio we're talking about. It puts them at future risk of "revenge being taken" since they've revealed their identity, regardless of who was being blackmailed and about what they were being blackmailed.
Mind you, since it's obvious they did meet, one could find an excuse (i.e., Kate wasn't criminally sophisticated and didn't realise the risk; build that assumpition in, and voila, problem "solved"! Solved with an assumption of course, but in the end, she was with someone and if blackmail is proved, that proves they met for whatever reason).
Anyway, given that they did meet, what is really the issue is "why did they meet?" I think the blackmail explanation may have some logical hurdles to clear, but they are not impossibly high.
However, being able to come up with an explanation that clears the hurdles isn't the same as having evidence which suggests that explanation. I've seen various versions of the "Kate's meeting was arranged", but none of them have been well supported in my view. It's possible, however, that there is evidence to suggest this in some fashion and I'm interested to see the arguement.
As we've all discussed, there is evidence that suggests prostitution, so although Kate has no police record (that we know of anyway), it's not a complete "out of the blue" theory. If the blackmail evidence, and lines of reasoning, are similarly suggestive, then we will have two reasonable ways to look at this particular case. Each will suggest different things, and hopefully one of those lines of reasoning will fit in better with the rest of what we know and help provide a clearer picture of the whole mystery.
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 112
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 5:04 pm: | |
Hi Caz,
I'm not sure I see how it fits either to be honest. As far as I know, Kate has no more prior records for blackmailing than she does for prostitution and I don't recall any testimony that says she was blackmailing anyone. Unless I'm wrong (and I certainly have been before), therefore, I would expect the evidence for blackmail to be of the same "suggestive nature" as that for "prostitution".
- Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 290
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 3:48 am: | |
Hi Guys,
I Can not accept a blackmail attempt by Eddowes, how can you possible blackmail a maniac?.
I can accept that she hoped to gain the reward money, and may well have , along with the assistance of the police contrived a plan to trap the killer.She may well have imformed the police , the person she thought was responsible , the area he lived in, and set herself up as a decoy, If she had arranged this with the police, her arrest at 8pm , could have been prearranaged, so that she could spend the next hours in BPS,for she could hardly continue drinking for several more hours, and she could not go home , for Kelly would have not allowed her out again.
It may seem something out of a hitchcock movie, but it is possible that she left the station at 1am, under observation, encountered a sailor after a service, after finally getting the point through to him , she was not intrested, she walked through the square, and was attacked by The killer, the officer following however had misplaced the couple, and she ended up another victim.
There was a stakeout that night not far from the rear of BPS, It is possible that that area was under observation, incase the ripper attacked Eddowes , and got away.
All specualtion... But it would be one way of getting the whitechapel reward , by offering yourself as a decoy, and giving a area which the killer may reside in.
it is also posssible that even if she did not secure the reward money, the police would have paid her for her nights work . Hutchinson claimed to have received Five pounds for his efforts.
Richard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
