|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 894
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:37 am: |       |
Dave, that isn't you in the Hawaiian grass skirt, is it?
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:59 am: | |
Not yet Robert, but here comes the weekend  |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 7:38 am: | |
After reading these posts I would have to say that I do NOT think Kate was a prostitute, even an occasional one. This is my opinion, as we are all entitled to one. I think that the following happened after she left the prison:-
She realised that without money for a bed she would have to "walk the street" until morning anyway (as Kelly as had said) so she might as well "walk the streets" in the direcetion of Bermondsey. Someone said that this was rubbish as her daughter hadn't lived there in a while but the whole family had tried to hide their addresses from Kate so how would she know. Anyway, she was on her way when she was propositioned by a man who mistook her for a prostitute. She was telling him that she wasn't and he played for time whilst waiting for a few people to walk past them (he would hardly pounce on her on full view of the public). He then grabbed her and dragged her into Mitre Square (having not much money for food she wouldn't be a strong or healthy woman).
This is of course pure speculation and I realise this but it is one answer to why she was there that night. Also I believe JTR didn't deliberately go looking for prostitutes but women who were just easy prey. |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 82
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 9:29 am: | |
Sarah, this theory that Kate was heading for Bermondsey has appeared before and the problem with it is that.. well... it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to anyone with a vague knowledge of the layout of those streets. If you are heading down Houndsditch and want to get to Bermondsey then you have to cross Tower Bridge, and to do that you keep going straight ahead, cross over Aldgate High Street into Minories and it takes you directly there. There is no reason for Kate to switch across from Houndsditch to Duke Street as she would only have to find her way back to Minories eventually anyway and this would have caused her an unnecessary and time consuming detour. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 312
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 11:34 am: | |
Sarah,
Alan makes an valid point.
If Kate is heading towards Bermondsey then Houndsditch or Bevis Marks/Duke st would be the most logical route.
She could have been dragged into the square but I feel that would have been something Jack would have wanted to avoid due to the unpredictableness (is that a word..it is now !) of such an act. Please bare in mind that Morris had the warehouse door open and the echos from the closed passageways.
Let me ask you What kind of woman would be easy prey ?
Monty
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 14
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 6:38 pm: | |
Clearly, I'm going to have to find the quote from Kelly in his inquest testimony where he alludes that Eddowes had indeed prostituted herself (though apparently not often, and probably against his will or prior to knowing him). I would have done so by now but, unfortunately, my home computer is out of order (and that's where my books are at) and my internet options are very limited right now. But I'll look into it. It's rather obvious that Eddowes was in fact a part-time prostitute, though mainly to feed her alcohol habit. If Sarah wishes to state otherwise, she'd lend her argument more merit by suggesting how Eddowes was able to produce cash to by alcohol, such as on the day of her arrest, and why she took a man to a secluded spot near a bar (or allowed herself to be led there). The most likely answer is that she was prostituting herself.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 166
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 7:15 pm: | |
Was it where Kelly says something like "I never saw any money that she earned at night"? I think I saw that in the Times coverage.
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 471
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 7:16 pm: | |
Hi Thomas,
Although I've been stressing the opinion here quite agressively that Kate most probably took to prostitution when she had no other alternatives, I must admit that - after reading all material available and been going over The Ultimate Companion (which I recieved a week ago) - Kate Eddowes actually NEVER is labelled as a prostitute anywhere, and is evidently the only one of the canonical victims who isn't mentioned as such. She is either called "the woman in Mitre Square" or just by her name. Regarding her occupations, they are referred to as "selling things on the street" and "hawking". So we really have no confirmation in the records actually saying that she practiced prostitution.
However, although we can't be sure, I still believe most circumstances points in that direction nevertheless and I agree with you. The fact remains that she, although both she and Kelly were poor and out of money, somehow found money to finance her alcohol consumtion in some way (unless she managed to get someone else to pay for her drinks) and also had prior convictins, and - as you point out - was seen with men outside the public houses after hours. Nothing is proven, but I still find it hard to find a good explanation to why just Jack the Prostitue Killer (if we assume those were his deliberate targets) chose her as a victim on a secluded spot, far off her usual home territory, if she wasn't intending to earn some extra money that way. The ridiculous black-mailing story and the trip to her daughter in Bermondsey (which should have been taken place much earlier in the evening, before she got arrested) doesen't cut it. However, I don't see her as a professional prostitute in same meaning as some of the other; I do believe she was a hard working woman and did the best she could to make money in other ways, such as hawking, cleaning etc.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 3:27 am: | |
Hi,
One of her quotes whilst in the cells was' I will get a dam good hiding when I get home'
Surely she would not have made her way back to Kelly straight away fearing the worst,if it was not for the morning fine, imposed for being drunk and disorderly, she would have rather stayed in the cells.
so on finding herself leaving the cells, she proberly intended to walk the streets, till light, not for any immoral purpose, simply clearing her head ,and finding a good excuse to tell Kelly in the morning, she would be in enough trouble as it was, without prostituting herself.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 476
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 6:19 am: | |
Hi Richard,
But she could just as well have stayed in the cell longer, since she was asked. It was she herself who said that she was alright enough to get out, when she in fact must have had quite a hangover. Nobody wanted to throw her out at that instance, so she could just have remained there throughout the night anyway. It doesen't make sense.
And what is the point walking about the whole night, if you are expected at home? Clear her head? Why just in the City district and Mitre Square then? I don't get it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 144
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 1:07 am: | |
Human nature would be for Kate to find a place to quietly sleep off the affects of the night of drinking. The lights at BPC and the noise from the other detainees may have been the reason she wanted to leave. A holding cell at 01:00 is not a quiet place, nor is it dark, and would not allow someone a place to sleep for long before being disturbed. Once awakened and unable to go back to sleep, she may have asked to be released in order to find a bit of solitude.
For a lady of the evening to indicate she is "working" she would have to approach a man in some fashion to let him know she was available. Since the price for a prostitutes' services in Whitechapel was pretty much the same, there would have been no need for any lengthy negotiation, nor would the lady in question get too friendly with her client, after all this is business. She would want to make contact, settle on a price, perform the act, and be back to find another as soon as possible.
So, why would she be in friendly conversation with someone and not appear to be in any hurry to complete her business transaction when the men spotted her as they were leaving the club. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 324
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 12:09 pm: | |
Shannon,
I thought she was sleeping off the effects of the booze in the cell...as spotted by a PC.
Monty
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 2:39 pm: | |
Hi Shannon
I'd have thought she'd have been an old hand with plenty of practice in sleeping off booze and hangovers even under the noisiest conditions!
Robert |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
Any woman who was out in the middle of the night would be Monty. I understand what you saying about there being a more logical route but did Kate have a map? Probably not. She may have always gone that way. Also we do not know what was going through her head.
Maybe Jack had no choice but to drag her into the square as he felt that maybe if he let her go she may guess who he was.
I may be just rambling now but anything could have been possible really. I'm not saying this is what happened but I just think it was at least a possibility. |
Sarah
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 10:27 am: | |
I'm sure she had her reasons....
I shall not be argued with  lol
Well we are entitled to our opinions. Maybe she wanted to delay herself as first of all she wasn't sure where exactly her daughter was and secondly I don't think for one second that she would have knocked on her daughter's door in the middle of the night. I think she was planning to go there and wait until dawn, she may as well have as she had no money for a bed which I have already explained. There is no point in saying that other's opinions are wrong as we do not have a time machine and so will never truely know why Kate was there that night. Just because it would have delayed her some what and seems odd to you Alan, doesn't mean that it is not what happened. Anyway these thoughts of mine are just probably incoherent ramblings  |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 10:46 am: | |
Glenn,
Why doesn't it make any sense to you for her to want to be let out? Richard already said that there was a morning fine for her being drunk and disorderly so that is a very good reason I'd have thought. Before I was aware of this I also thought she would have just wanted to stay there but now I know then it is not surprising at all for her to want to leave. |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
I find Mr Andersons assertions getting even more ridiculous. In his post of the 14th Oct he finally admits that there is no record anywhere of Eddowes being labelled a prostitute at the time. However he still insists she is a prostitute - why? because Jack the Prostitute killer killed her! Oh well that's it then isn't it, this in spite of the fact that that other well known prostitute killer, Peter Suttcliffe killed non prostitutes by mistake.
The blackmail theory for which there is a deal of circumstantial evidence ( a lot more than labelling Eddowes a prostitute) he dismisses as 'ridiculous'.
As I said before ' Crime historian.....'
Bob |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 493
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 7:30 am: | |
I find Mr Hinton's posts getting even more tedious. One measurement I have of intelligence is that one can differ the person from his or hers opinions. Since you obviously are incapable of that, I seriously must question your social ability and your view on democratic principles.
"In his post of the 14th Oct he finally admits that there is no record anywhere of Eddowes being labelled a prostitute at the time."
I thought me admitting that, would lead to at least some form of appreciation. But instead Mr Hinton is determined to make it a personal matter whatever the cost and whatever I say. Sad.
However, I think the points that I, Jeff and a few others have laid up as arguments for the possibility of Kate engaging herself to casual prsotitution is quite valid and - once again - I haven't seen any good explanation to her appearing on Mitre Square so far. I do feel each and every one of us is entitled to an opinion, Bob Hinton as well.
"Crime historian"... Yes, well one Ripper book doesen't make you an author either (if we are going to keep it on such a low level - I prefer we decide to keep away from that sort of thing, you don't know me more than I know you).
Yes, Bob, I do think the black-mailing scenario is completely rubbish! And I think some of us here have presented quite a number of arguments to why this is less probable explanation. If you could afford yourself to read and comment on those instead of indulging yourself to personal attacks, this discussion could be more fruitful. And I deninitely would recommend you to do that, because I am not prepared to repeat myself just to satisfy you on that point. There's no way pleasing you anyway. And I have certainly no interest whatsoever if fighting with you - I want to lay me energy elsewhere - so this is my last response you get from me, unless you don't improve your message post manner. I feel quite sorry for Stephen, who have put a lot of work into this web-site, and then some here can't use it in a deseant way. I myself have gone over the top a few times, and it is certainly not something that I am proud of.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 494
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 7:44 am: | |
Sarah Long,
I must admit that I never understood the part about the "morning fine" and what that actually mean, and therefore didn't comment on it. I am only familiar with the legal system in Scandinavia, not in Victorian London. But I'm still learning, so if someone would explain it to me, I'd be happy indeed to consider that part.
Does it mean, that she would get a fine if she stayed there until a certain time in the morning, and in order to avoid that she wanted to get out as soon as possible? If that's the case, then I can understand it and that would indeed be a good explanation to that specific detail. It wouldn't explain why she decided to wander off into the City district, though, instead of heading home. I don't think she would get any less "a fine good hiding" at home just because she decided to drag the whole thing out. The best thing for her to do, I would think, would be to run on home as soon as she could.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 325
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 10:34 am: | |
Sarah,
No, I disagree.
A woman who voluntarily puts her self in the company of a strange man would be easy prey.
How many years had Kate lived in that area ? Id have thought she would have had some degree of knowledge concerning her surroundings. Some idea that going via the square is not the quickest route.
Monty....just being playful
|
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 7:27 am: | |
Bob,
I can see Glenn's point about the whole thing about where she got her alcohol money from, but I still don't believe Kate was a prostitute. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting she was. Just because JTR killed her, I see that as no reason to think she was at all.
This woman is dead and was murdered in a terrible way and yet here are some people insisting she was a prostitute with no evidence. I'm sorry but haven't you people ever heard the phrase "don't speak ill of the dead". |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 10:51 am: | |
We can agree to disagree then Monty. I am used to that, although I am by no means suggesting that this is what happened, I am just stating that this is a mere possibility.
I don't pretend to be as knowledgable as all the posters on here but sometimes I just have ideas that I like to share and it is a shame when some people say your ideas are stupid and not think that their own are a bit far fetched at times, like certain people saying that Joe Barnett was JTR. For me, that has got to be the most laughable thing I've ever heard.
Anyway as I said, I don't think this is what necessarily happened but no-one knows what did happen.
Also, Monty, if you were a woman you would understand when I say that any woman out on her own in the middle of the night would be easy prey. I am alwasy unnerved being out on my own in the night, luckily this is not often and I have had my own close encounters so I know what it is like. Maybe I should say most then instead of all, but I can't imagine any woman being ok on her own in the night on the streets.
By the way, I don't mean any of this to sound rude so I apologise now if it sounds that way as sometimes people have accused me of being rude when I haven't meant to and this is one of those times.
Regards, Sarah
P.S: Remember, smile and the world....will wonder what you've been up to.  |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 7:48 am: | |
Glenn,
Do you always do the best thing then? Just because Kate shouldn't have dragged it out, doesn't mean she didn't.
Yes she would have received a fine in the morning if she remained there, that is what I presume Richard meant. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 501
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 3:33 pm: | |
Sarah,
I didn't say that she shouldn't have dragged it out, I meant that I see no logical reason for her to do so. Wandering around on the streets at night, with a Ripper on the loose, is hardly a great option compared to heading on home. You're enterpreting mine and others intentions the wrong way. There's noone here blaming Kate Eddowes for anything, and I have no idea why you're referring prostitution to "speak ill of the dead". We've had that discussion here earlier and I can assure you, that believing that a woman during those cicumstances would turn to prostitution once in a while is not meant as an accusation against any of them, just a statement free from any kind of personal judgement.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 3:34 pm: | |
Glenn.
It was the law that any one male or female , that was found to be drunk and disorderly, was to be arrested, and spend the night in a local police station until morning, when they would appear before a local magistrate, and be fined according to the severity of the case.
However it appears that police policy was to be lenient with people that obviously were not in a position, to pay such a fine, and provided they behaved themselves in custody, and were capable of acting in a reasonable sober condition, they could be released with only a caution, for it was considered a humane way of dealing with the obvious hard times that people found themselves in during that period.
Obviously Eddowes did not come under the category of a dangerous indervidual, or was well known in the district as a regular offender, and therefore was released at such time was seen fit.
Sarah.
I was beginning to enjoy your posts, but to say Barnett is a laughable suspect ' oh Dear' but of course I am bias...
Regards 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.
|
|
|
|
