|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2292
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 5:38 pm: | 
|
well he was quick thinking enough to enter another man"s house and don another man"s clothes to throw his pursuers of the scent when he escaped from the loony bin that day-why not steal another man"s name-or better still "invent" a couple for yourself and throw everybody off the scent ...he was inventive enough when necessary wasn"t he ! |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
A Self, a Stiff and a Bone!
Good to hear from you Debra.
Quite right Natalie, we musn't allow ourselves to think of poor Thomas, he was quick with his feet and wits when required. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Letters of intent to murder.
Edmund Lewis.
April 1887.
Sentenced to 8 months hard labour, and then only released on bonds from his family totalling 300 quid providing that he no longer wrote letters threatening to kill certain people in authority.
The judge made it quite clear that if Edmund was to write another such letter then he would he handed down a severe sentence.
This is exactly the same time frame that Thomas was writing letters to Lord Grimthorpe, the Treasury and others, like Dr. Brooks...
So where is the prosecution?
The police were aware of the letters. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2304
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
I am following you AP.I wonder who would have
intervened? |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
John Ruffles
I am not sure who the seven preferred suspects were, I haven't seen them laid out by anyone. There are so many. However if Cutbush was not one of them why did McNaughton make such a point of declaring him not the Ripper. As I said in my post why did McNaughton make such a point of Thomas Cutbush not being the ripper, and not any other suspects, including his own list. He could not state with certenty that Druitt was the ripper. If there was evidence against any of these suspects why wasn't the ripper's name made public to ensure the population that his reign of terror was over? Or for that matter why wasn't it announced that the ripper had been caught and was under lock & key, even if his name wasn't revealed? Easy, it smells of coverup so bad!! I think we need to concentrate on those officers/inspectors etc who were involved from day one eg: Abberline. I do not accept his suspect but he did state that the ripper wasn't found in the Thames (not in those words though). Why did all the senior officials have such different opinions, with a couple of exceptions, it seems that one hand didn't know what the other hand was doing.
My humble opinion only
Restless Spirit
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 268
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
John,
Seven preferred suspects? I have never heard of this. Even if it was said, and said by Sims, who was not MM's crony (where did that one come from), but out for himself and headlines only, what makes you think it was true? most believe
In my opinion, from analyzing every aspect of the case, there were not seven preferred suspects. Cutbush stems from MM's original memo, which most still believe does not exist, while also ignoring the fact that it perfectly explains why MM wrote an internal memo to denounce Cutbush in 1894. It also answers why Kosminski was really brought in as a suspect, and adds insight into Anderson, and what many believe was his outright lies about a witness ID that no one ever veriified.
I'd love to hear more on these "seven preferred suspects", but they really don't exist, unless they were made up by an enterprising journalist years after the murders.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Stan
It was indeed Macnaghten's crony G. R. Sims who wrote this, in The Referee, 13 July 1902:
In that case [the Ripper case] they had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series.
But prior to this discovery the name of the man found drowned was bracketed with two others as A Possible Jack and the police were in search of him alive when they found him dead.
http://casebook.org/press_reports/dagonet.html
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 16, 2005) |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 270
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Chris,
Without getting into another all out argument, because we obviously disagree on everything that has to do with this case, I don't buy Sims' ideas at all. I also know that Sims once accused himself of actually being 'JTR'. If one accepts what he writes in one place as fact, then they should accept what he writes everywhere.
I don't. Some might wholeheartedly believe there were seven preferred suspects, and by some ridiculous stroke of unplanned luck each officer just picked a different one as their preferred suspect. Or, as an alternative, I see an enterprising journalist inventing items to sell papers, such as he himself committed the crimes.
If you accept his words as fact, being MM's apparent crony, who are the other six suspects, as Sims would have to be one of the seven, from his own admission.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Stan
I didn't say I accepted it (and of course there are reasons to think that Druitt and Kozminski at least weren't suspected by the police at the time of the murders).
It was just that you said you'd love to know more, so I posted the quotation from Sims.
By the way, I think you'll find that Sims claimed only that a Ripper suspect resembled him - not that he was the killer himself!
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 271
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Chris,
Thanks for the quote. I honestly don't remember coming across it. It is valuable as an historical element of the case.
Yes and no Chris. he said that a portrait f himself looked exactly like a person the police sought. he made frequent references to it, indicating to me that he was trying to drum up something. I don't recall any man with blood stains on his cuffs outside of the obviously fabricated PC Spicer story and the Lees tale.
So yes and no, but its how one interprets Sims' motives. Again, not an argument, just an opinion. I doubt anything Sims said is taken as more than in the vain of trying to sell his writings.
SJR |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Hi Stan.
I think that John was only quoting what he'd read.
In Philip Sugden's "Complete History of JtR", Page 375, paperback edition, is the following passage.
"Under the pseudonym 'Dragonet', Sims wrote a regular piece for 'The Referee' in which he frequently adverted to the suicide in the Thames. Thus, in July 1902, he assured his readers that during the course of their inquiries, the police reduced the number of suspects to SEVEN, and then by further exhaustive inquiry, to just THREE".
Stan, I think I read something similar elsewhere too, but this is the only piece I have.
Not that any of this will affect the argument concerning Cutbush, or the remaining three suspects named by Macnaghten.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 275
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
David,
I see it now. My opinion on Sims is clear.
SJR |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4798
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:27 am: |
|
Debra, re Samuel Bone : he's mentioned Sept 18th 1849 as still having debt problems.
There was a Samuel Bone, plumber and painter, age 65, born Kent, living London in 1861.
Robert |
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 66
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 4:36 am: |
|
Thanks for that Robert, I'll have another look.
The bankrupcy directory said Samuel Bone otherwise Thomas Cutbush, plumber, do you think the ' Thomas Cutbush' part may be the name of an established plumbing business that Samuel took over and not a personal alias of his?
There was at least one other Cutbush who also changed his name and fled to Wales from London, he seems to have run up bad debts too.
Debra |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4799
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 5:15 am: |
|
Hi Debra
It's very confusing. You could be right there.
There was a case Cutbush v Cutbush which dragged on till 1849 - Mark sent me some photocopies from the PRO. This was to do with the Thomas Cutbush from Maidstone who died and whose wife then had to run his business. I've looked at the papers Mark sent me but can find no reference to Bone.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
This is coming straight off the top of my addled head, but some months ago I posted a story which involved local elections in Maidstone, Kent, whereby members of the Cutbush clan were aiming to win such elections.
I now find that such elections were always held at the Mitre Hotel just outside of Maidstone; and this means that Catherine Eddowes when she went hop-picking in Hunton, Kent, was only about three miles away from said Mitre Hotel where the Cutbush clan ruled the roost.
I suspect they owned said Mitre Hotel but must research more.
Another matter is that I still have my sincere doubts about anyone hop-picking in Kent in 1888, as in September of 1887 the mother of all storms devastated the hop crop and it was thought that the crop would never recover.
Perhaps Kate just went down to have a glass of ale with uncle Charles at the Mitre Hotel?
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4917
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Well if she wasn't thirsty when she left, she would have been by the time she arrived, AP.
I know that there were one or two seriously rich Cutbushes down there - we're talking big money, as Max Bygraves used to say.
Robert |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
AP
Re Eddowes/Cutbush.
One thing that really intrigues me is Catherine stating that she knew who Jack is. She took a very big chance making a statment like that. If she did know who he was she was at risk of being attacked in the dark and if she didn't know but was just guessing like everyone else she still chanced Jack attacking her in the dark,if he heard of her claims. It seemed that she was planning something with respect to blackmail etc., but was she that stupid or naive to think that because she knew, he wouldn't touch her? I would think the opposite would be more than likely.
I wonder did she really know? But she does not appear to have told anyone, even John Kelly. She did nothing to protect herself.Why?
Any comments?
regards
Julie
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2464
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Julie
It has always been my belief that if Eddowes had some kind of ‘in’ to the identity of JtR, then it would have been third person, second-hand. She may well have known of Jack, but probably knew a relation of Jack quite well.
Sadly I have no proof of this.
However the fact that she was arrested by the police in a certain location for simply being drunk - this a rare event in itself, usually drunks were only arrested and confined for public disorder acts, and I don’t believe her imitation of a fire engine ranked that category - and then turned out of her cell at such an hour, right in the middle of the series of murders, does rankle somewhat.
I would say that it was unusual for Eddowes to be released from custody at such an hour, as normally drunks committing public disorder offences are locked up for the night, and then charged.
The police are honestly not - and have never been - fond of clearing their cells at such a time of night.
First thing in the morning drunks are either discharged or charged.
Eddowes’ statement that she knew the identity of JtR, taken in combination with her unusual treatment at the police station that night, does lead me to suggest that she was in fact released that night on the orders of a senior police officer with some connection to the case.
As you probably know I do believe that Eddowes was keeping an appointment in Mitre Square. |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
AP
I concur with your theory that she had an appt. in Mitre Square, however, I don't understand why she left herself open to such danger, unless she maybe knew him on a more personable basis and trusted her life with him, Still seems pretty nieve though.
thanks
Julie
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
An appt. in Mitre Square would be nice, as long as it had a flushing toilet.
And some stairs. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4930
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 6:00 am: |
|
AP, dare I call the flushing toilet a pipedream?
Robert |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
AP,
"The police are honestly not - and have never been - fond of clearing their cells at such a time of night.
First thing in the morning drunks are either discharged or charged.
Depends on how many cells they had and how many drunks they were expecting.
Eddowes got pie eyed fairly early that evening, a Saturday evening. Early sobering coupled with her being female (well duh) may have forced a decision. That is to clear the cells, make room and avoid possible assaults.
Just an observation.
Mitre square, like today, is a cut through. You dont meet a person you suspect of murder there. Out in the open is more logical. With someone is even safer.
Cheers,
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Yes, Robert, you dare, and I even know a good plumber to call upon if the pipedream becomes blocked.
Imagine a plumber named Flood?
The very idea is madness.
Monty
points taken on board.
However I believe Eddowes was arrested at 8pm and by that time she had actually passed out on the pavement, by my reckoning it would have taken more than four or five hours for her to have recovered from the effect of her binge.
Those Whitechapel girls could drink a powerful lot of ale and gin, as she obviously did.
We know today that alcohol can remain in the body - and obviously its effects on that body - for up to twelve or more hours, that is why so many heavy drinkers when breath-tested the following morning are prosecuted.
I would suggest that a person who passed out from the effects of alcohol at 8pm would not be fully sober until about 12am the next day.
Unable to say anything yet about police procedure in the LVP, all I can say is that under normal circumstances a drunk would have been detained until the following morning and then either released or charged... my essential point being that a drunken person is considered unable to make a statement, or be charged, or be discharged until sober.
That is the law.
I still maintain that Eddowes could not have been sober upon her discharge at 1am.
Mitre Square has something about it, though?
And I did suggest that if she was meeting someone then she probably thought she was meeting someone with whom she was able to confide in concerning her suspicions.
Or get a bit of cash from a wealthy and well-connected relative?
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 121
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
AP
One other point re Eddowes possible early release that should be taken into consideration is I believe it was Anderson's suggestion to arrest the prostitutes found on the streets at late hours, in order to protect them. If indeed I am not misquoting, why on earth would they release a known prostitute, pissed out of her mind, at that ungodly hour, into the then very dangerous streets, controlled by the Whitechapel murderer. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Monty, you said that it depended on how many cells were full and how many expected to be full, that may indeed be the case, however I would be inclined to think that if they needed room in the cells, they would not have released a woman into the night with Jack still at large and preying on just the type of person that Eddowes represented, it would make more sense to release a male or for that matter two females together, not one still under the influence, which I do not doubt she still was.
regards
Julie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2399
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Hi Julie,
....but Eddowes wasnt arrested for prostitution-she was just drunk!!!!
Natalie |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 122
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
I know she wasn't arrested for prostitution, however if I am not mistaken, she was a known prostitute.Most of the females arrested for drunkedness at this time were most likely prostitutes, I doubt that your average lady or single woman or married with children would be out at that hour of the night drunk, nor could they afford to do so, however the prostitutes did spend their sex money on booze . Of course I could be all wet.
regards
Julie
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 3:04 am: |
|
Hi,
I have always considered the release of Eddowes as being one of two things .
a] incompetence
b] suspicious.
In the defense of the police i should add that at the time that she was released the police would have not been aware of the Stride killing, although soon would have.
I offer two possible solutions.
a] She offered herself as a decoy in a attempt to accost the ripper, and she was followed on leaving the police station by a plain clothes officer[ which could explain Bleinkensops account of a man asking him 'Have you seen a man and woman pass this way' [at 130am]
That reason being he had lost the couple en route proberly as they were standing at the entrance to Church passage.
b]Not long after eddowes departure the station was alerted to the recent incident in Berner street, and a officer was despatched hot footed after Eddowes in the direction the desk sergeant observed, it was then that he observed a man and a woman in the far distance who was lost to him as he arrived at mitre square.
I believe that the police made a complete mess of that night and that would have caused the media silence that was evident to reporters on the scene at Mitre square.
Regards Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2401
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
Hi Julie,
No,Catherine Eddowes was not a "known" prostitute.She had in fact just returned, a few days before, from hop picking in Kent with her partner John Kelly.They made little money from it apparently which forced them to pawn a brand new pair of boots John had bought for himself.So Catherine said she would go to her daughters to cadge some "doss" money.She didnt get to her daughters and no one knows what she got up to between 2pm and 8pm,when she was arrested for being D&D outside 29 Aldgate High Street and frog marched to Bishopsgate police station to sober up.
Where she got the money from to get stone drunk is not known.It could have been from several sources-most probably from "selling herself" in a sort of one off or occasional way.
From what the lodging house keeper
said about her and her partner John and from what John said about her, she was not a sex worker as such- for example she was a hawker/selling odds and ends,she cleaned houses sometimes[for mainly Jewish households like Elizabet Stride did sometimes] and she went hop picking etc and if and when she "went on the game" it was because she and John were so flat broke they couldnt afford food,digs and in Catherine"s case anyway her very important comforter- any booze!!!
Natalie |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1846
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
AP, Julie,
Yes, quite. I think the crux is in your sentence “Unable to say anything yet about police procedure in the LVP”.
There is nothing to state that she was under the influence when she left. Her last recorded words seem lucid and coherent. It was obviously considered that she was able to look after herself and as I say, evidence we have supports that.
As for the fear of releasing her into Jack clutches, well they couldn’t hold her forever. Over all however, I agree that it’s a little lax to release her if the cells were empty.
It had been over a fortnight since the last murder and all indications, at that time, pointed to the Killer being a Whitechapel/Met problem, not city. So I guess I can see why they were lax.
Cheers,
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Natalie
I guess I stand corrected, however, I still do believe that Eddowes was known as a prostitute and this was probably not the first time she was arrested.
Maybe it was assumed by all that she was a prostitute, due to her actions, late nights out and drunkedness, possibly.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Monty
I couldn't have said it better myself.
PS was I correct in stating that Anderson had suggested arresting the prostitutes found on the street soliciting , for their own protection?
regards
Julie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2404
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Julie,
Well ofcourse John Kelly and their lodging house keeper may have had their own reasons for
stating that most nights Kate and John went to bed early-and didnt go outmuch at all at night but this is what they both did state at her inquest.
Some indications that this may not have been altogether true were the statements to the press that Kate sometimes slept in "the Shed"[behind Mary Kelly"s room in Dorset Street].Also that John Kelly himself said that Kate had insisted on him taking the room at the lodging house the previous night since they didnt have the money for both of them to stay there and that she herself would go to the women"s ward at the work house[if I remember correctly].
Accounts of this information can be found in Paul Begg"s book the Facts,in the Source book and on the casebook thread about Catherine Eddowes.
Best
Natalie |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1849
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 3:37 am: |
|
Julie,
Yes, its true about Andersons suggestion. An indication of his failure (or his advisors failure) to understand the economic and social conditions these unfortunates were under.
It was also an indication of his own personal beliefs.
Cheers,
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
AP,
I find it very difficult to believe that anyone, especially a short, skinny, half-drunk woman would want to make (still less keep) an appointment with anyone in a dark London square at half-past one in the morning at the height of the Ripper scare, no matter what the motivation for doing so. The simplest explanation in my view is that Katherine left Bishopsgate Police station, then started making her way either:
a) towards St Botolph's (a renowned prostitutes' hang-out) to pick up some more trade; or
b) towards Aldgate High Street, with a view to following its relatively safe and well-lit route back to hers or John Kelly's temporary digs; or
c) towards King St (where she believed her daughter was still residing) with a view to scrounge some money.
In either scenario, the likely route would have taken her southwards a short distance down Bishopsgate St, then via Houndsditch (where earlier she'd parted company with Kelly) towards the direction of St Botolph's/Aldgate/King St.
Duke Street abuts directly onto this route halfway between Houndsditch and Aldgate. Duke St then "doglegs" around and joins Church Passage - where Eddowes and her presumed killer were seen by Lawende et al - just before Houndsditch hits Aldgate High St. Katherine could have taken this "dogleg" herself en route to King St, or she may have been accosted by her killer at the junction of Houndsditch and Duke St, promenading with him round the dogleg towards Mitre Square.
Alternatively, if she had not discovered the previous evening that her daughter had moved house, she may have headed for King St shortly after her discharge from the cells. She could have gone the Houndsditch way or by the more straightforward Bishopsgate St -> Camomile St -> Bevis Marks -> Duke St -> St James Place -> King St route. Having no joy, logically she'd have doubled back towards Duke St/Houndsditch, thence to Aldgate/St Botolph's to raise funds by alternative means, or simply head for "home".
The crucial point is that we don't need to posit any pre-arrangement in Duke St to explain why Katherine was seen there at that time of the morning by Lawende. Whatever her motive was, there were legitimate reasons for her to be in the vicinity of Duke St at that time of night. This logic is based simply on the premise that Duke St was the common factor in at least two of the most plausible routes she'd have taken after being discharged from Bishopsgate nick.
|
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
No doubt John Kelley and the house master had their own reasons for stating what they did. And yes I most certainly have read the Facts in Paul Begg's book, however I cannot help but feel that Kate was indeed a prostitute when hard financial times hit her & John.
That's why I refer to her as a known prostitute because when necessary she did ply this trade.
It appears from what is written though that she was not a regular prostitute like say Chapman, Tabram etc.,
Your points are well taken, but as we have all said there is still so much we don't know for certain about Jack and his victims.
best regards
Julie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2406
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Hi Julie,
Kate may well have gone on the game when things got particularly rough but she was not,as far as I am aware, a "known" prostitute.
Can you cite where there is a record of her being a "known" prostitute please?
Nobody knows what she got up to that afternoon
-a friend reckoned Kate told her she had been given a "talking to" by a well dressed stranger in a pub who had given her 5 shillings to encourage her to change her ways.She said Kate told her he would see her again the next week and give her more money if she started to do so. However we dont know
a]whether the friend was making up this story for the press
b]whether,if it was true, the "well dressed stranger" was concerned mostly about her heavy drinking rather than whether she was on the game
-there were numbers of "Temperence Societies" making it their mission to try to get people to become teetotalers - such a man could have been one of these type of "missionaries".
c]If the story is true this is the man she could have gone and found that Saturday afternoon-maybe working at a local Mission Hall-told him about her efforts to stay "clean"[of drink]and of how she had gone to Kent on a failed "hop picking" expedition and of how she was now flat broke.Such a person may have taken pity on her plight and foolishly given her another 5 shillings which,being Kate,she promptly used to go on an almighty binge that had her banged up in Bishopsgate by 8.30 that night!
I think that banging on about whether or not she was a part time,full time, no time prostitute
is besides the point---Kate"s prime goal would have been getting hold of a belly full of booze-her daughter knew it,John knew it-though he tried to cover it up and quite frankly I don"t think Kate gave a two-penny damn what any of them thought.
Natalie
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
I fully agree with you, Gareth, there was absolutely no logical reason whatsoever for Eddowes to have been in Mitre Square at that time in the morning.
Problem is she was.
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 8:05 pm: |
|
AP,
"I fully agree with you, Gareth, there was absolutely no logical reason whatsoever for Eddowes to have been in Mitre Square at that time in the morning"
I didn't mean that and you know it ;o) There was *every* reason for Eddowes to be in the vicinity of Mitre Square. Houndsditch, Duke St, Bevis Marks, etc all converge (within a few junctions) on Mitre Square. Houndsditch, Bevis Marks were the two most sensible routes Eddowes would have taken after being released from Bishopsgate Police Station.
Unless you'd expect her to stand outside the nick all night, the Occam's razor explanation would simply be that Kate hit the road. The most sensible routes back to civilisation all led to within a few dozen yards of Mitre Square.
"Problem is she was"
No problem at all - the simplest explanation was that she was taken there by her killer after their paths crossed fortuitously on any one of those thoroughfares. Why is this any more of a problem than Nichols being found in Buck's Row or Chapman being found in a Hanbury St back yard? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Yes, Gareth, you caught me having a bit of fun, and I'm sorry about that.
I honestly do not have a problem with this situation, and do bow to your superior knowledge of Whitechapel.
Caught between the bow and stern of a sinking ship, I'm prepared to grab a straw when the lifeboats have all left.
I simply await events to unfold, as they will, and I do believe that eventually some form of telegraphic communication regarding the release of Eddowes will be found.
As I've stated before it was the nightly duty of every inspector of every station to telegraph Scotland Yard with the events of the previous 24 hours.
I don't believe I'm alone in thinking that Eddowes seemed to be heading back to an area where she had unfinished business when she was released from custody.
Your input is valued and much appreciated. |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Natalie
I could possibly have read too many inaccurate reports concerning Kate and the other Ladies of the Evening. I cannot provide proof one way or the other, concerning Kate's chosen occupation. I take your word for the fact that she only occasionally plied this trade under duress when financial hardship was prevalent.
Regards
Julie
|
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 73
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 7:19 pm: |
|
Hi All
I have just received this email today
>>Hello Debra
As I'm not able to register on the Casebook site, and yours is the only email address I can locate, I'm writing to you directly to ask if you'd post this email message on the Cutbush board.
I've spent two happy days reading through the Cutbush board at Casebook, and several hours going through your Rootsweb files.
Incredible stuff!
Thanks to you and the Casebook researchers, I've been able to fill in some gaping holes in my family tree. I'm amazed at the huge amount of effort that's gone into researching the Cutbushes. A huge thank you to all of you.
I'm the great-great-great grand-daughter of Clarissa Meek, who was the daughter of Clarissa Cutbush and John Joseph Meek and the grand-daughter of Tom Flood Cutbush.
Clarissa Meek (b.Jan 26 1836) married William James Dunbar Moodie in South Africa in 1853. Among their many children was my great-great grandmother Charlotte Mary St. Clair Moodie, who married Frederick Robert Moor, one-time Prime Minister of Natal. For some years now I've been transcribing Charlotte's extensive diaries (she kept a fascinating journal during the Boer War) and those of her daughter Shirley Moor - hence my interest in their ancestry.
Very little is known about Clarissa Meek apart from the fact that she divorced her husband under acrimonious circumstances; he was apparently a philanderer of note, with a penchant for the domestic help. Needlesss to say divorce reslulted in a minor scandal.
I don't know when Clarissa came to South Africa, but I believe she was a teacher/governess at some point in her life.
I'd be grateful if you could answer three questions (forgive me for missing the obvious, but after reading through the hundreds of messages at Casebook, making copious notes and drinking a few brandies, I'm still bewildered!)
1. What is the family link between Supt. Charles Henry Cutbush and Thomas Hayne Cutbush? I know they were uncle and nephew, but on which side of the family? Was Thomas Hayne Cutbush's father, Thomas Taylor Cutbush, the brother of Charles Henry Cutbush?
2. On Rootsweb, I see the word "adopted" next to the names of the children of Clarissa Cutbush and John Joseph Meek. Does this mean that all their children were not their natural offspring? (If this is the case, the next question is null and void!)
3. Any interest in a photograph of Clarissa Meek? I have a wonderfully melodramatic sepia shot of Clarissa Meek in her later years, sitting at the bedside of her dying son Cuthbert Moodie (a brilliant scholar who was cast out of the Moodie family because of his rampant Catholicism), who died in New York of TB. If Clarissa Meek was indeed adopted, this would be of no interest to the Casebook sleuths. But if she was the natural child of Clarissa Cutbush and John Joseph Meek, perhaps the Cutbush Ripperologists would appreciate a copy of the photo.
Best wishes
Jane-Anne Hobbs Rayner <<
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 7:33 pm: |
|
Debra,
This kind of information makes me believe that there is going to be a breakthrough someday from people researching their roots. With that may come telltale articles and notes and the like. I hope the Cutbush experts can help this woman.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 74
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 7:45 pm: |
|
Exactly Mike!
Who knows how many other dusty old diaries and papers there are lying around in descendants attics that have as yet been undiscovered and may contain a clue!...can't help her with the first question though!!!!
Debra |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 938
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 10:02 pm: |
|
Nice work, Ms. Arif...very nice work.
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 14
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 2:42 am: |
|
Debra,
I wonder if this woman had any family information that led her to this site. Is that something you could ask her?
There's so much unfounded speculation around here that it is maddening at times. This kind of stuff stokes the fires again.
We play this game in the states called 7 degrees of separation with Kevin Bacon (the actor). The idea is that any famous actor is 7 or less links away from Kevin Bacon. An example might be John Wayne is linked to Dennis Hopper in the movie El Dorado, Dennis Hopper is linked to Kiefer Sutherland in 'The Last Days of Frankie the Fly', Kiefer Sutherland is linked to Kevin Bacon in 'Flatliners'.
I think that kind of linking is what's going to solve the Whitechapel murders.
But what do I know?
Mike the Mauler
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4962
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Thanks, Debra, for posting this. Exciting material!
Jane-Anne, it's always good to hear from folks such as yourself.
Robert |
Debra J. Arif
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 75
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Mike
I have asked Jane-Anne about any family stories or rumours that may have led her to look here for information, but I think it's more a case of her 'googling' family names and getting hits on the casebook...you never know though!
By the way I have answered Janes' second and third questions, the adoption business on the rootsweb family tree she saw was my fault, I was unable to use the software properly ,so we would love to have a photograph of Clarissa Meek as she was some sort of cousin to TTC and THC.( which was the third question)
Thanks Howard but Robert and AP had done much of the work before I even arrived here, I just happened to put my email address on the family tree we compiled between us.
Please don't call me Ms Arif, Debra is fine, last time I was called Ms on here it was by someone who accused me of snooping in other people's dirty laundry...well someone has to do it!
Debra |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
AP: "Gareth, you caught me having a bit of fun, and I'm sorry about that"
No need to apologise at all - I have a thick skin, besides which I enjoyed your tongue-in-cheek riposte :o) I've also enjoyed your contributions to this and other threads and I reciprocate your gratitude for my comparatively meagre input!
You're as entitled to your theories as I am - provided we make sense, of course! Your angle on this certainly does make sense, it's just that I believe that Kate's "unfinished business" amounted to no more than finding her doss money by whichever means she could. I also strongly believe that she intended to find her doss money from nobody in particular, or possibly from her daughter at a push.
My own telepathy tells me that Kate's "I think I know who he is" amounted to little more than speculation on Kate's part, and in all likelihood was merely drunkard's braggadocio. Kate was, by all accounts, a "bit of a character" and, if her Thomas Conway account is anything to go by, not averse to inflating the truth to liven up a story.
BTW, I wish this wasn't in a "Cutbush" thread - this is essentially a "suspect neutral" problem as far as I'm concerned.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5051
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
Today I received two wills :
William Hine of the Howe, Watlington, Oxfordshire, farmer. Bequeaths his household effects to his sister Catherine Sarah Hine and his friend Anne Frances Baker, both of the Howe, equally. All the rest goes to Catherine. He doesn't go into details. Will dated Aug 6th 1875.He died 24th Oct 1875 at the Howe. Effects under £450.
No leaseholds.
Catherine Sarah Hine Died 18th March 1900 at 16 Durand Gardens though her fixed abode was the Howe. Gross value of estate £837 4s 0d. Net value of personal estate £156 12s 9d. She makes several small bequests to various family members, including the children of her late nephew John Samuel Hayne. Clara and Kate get a messuage, a 12 acre field which she purchased from the executor of Miss Baker, another piece of land about 3 acres which she purchased from someone, and all other money and securities. Dated 28 Sept 1898.
Robert
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
