|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 71
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 5:36 am: |       |
Glenn, Kate was roaring drunk when she was arrested at 8:00 PM. If she had made arrangements to meet someone, they would have written her off when she got arrested, yet she was obsessed with heading back in the direction of Aldgate as soon as she was released from BPS, why? As drunk as she was, and as little sleep as she had, she should have either slept it off in the station or went home. Instead she goes back. There was more to it than a quick roll in the sack at a club half way cross town and out of Whitechapel to make a pence to take back to John who was all the way back in the other direction.
Sorry, doesn't add up...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 72
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 5:48 am: | |
Kate had something special in John. Seven years together with someone who tollerated her drinking, worked with her in the fall, and for as little as they had seemed to put her first in his life. I find it hard to believe she would risk it all for a roll in the hay for the price of a glass of gin that might give her a social disease she would have passed to John and lost him if it happened. Some in the slum still had pride and dignity even if they did have other demons to deal with.
Shannon |
Robert Charles Linford
Chief Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 882
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 6:58 am: | |
Hi Shannon
Surely we can't know whether or not Eddowes did have syphilis?
We know that Stride had it, but only from her Swedish records. We know that McKenzie had it - but that's thanks to the fact that Phillips's full report has survived. There is no mention, as far as I know, of any of the other women having syphilis. Maybe the mutilations made it difficult for the doctors to decide the issue, or maybe it's only mentioned in the full reports. I can't help feeling that more had syphilis than just Stride and McKenzie. If only the full reports survived, we'd know one way or the other.
Kelly claimed to have spent time in an infirmary when young. This needn't of course have been necessarily owing to syphilis, but you see what I mean?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 708
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 8:43 am: | |
G'day Shannon,
But Kate was sober when she left Bishopsgate Police Station at 1:00a.m., and I believe she did sleep it off at the station.
LEANNE
|
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 74
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 8:46 am: | |
A lot of people spent time in the infirmary for bronchitis, influenza, and other maladies brought on by the living conditions, as well as those admitted for social diseases.
With her family, lover, and the deputy from the lodging all stating that she was never known to work the streets, I will give her the benefit of the doubt till proven otherwise. The police didn't recognize her, nor is there any record of her having been arrested for anything other than being drunk in public the night she was murdered.
Her timing is what is in question. She is released from jail, could go home or to a pub/club on the way if she really was "working" and yet she heads back the way she came from.
As drunk as she was she wouldnt have remembered who she was to meet if she made arrangements to see someone later. Once sober, if looking for "trade," would have found something a bit closer to home as when your drunk you get tired and lazy. You dont go out of your way unless absolutely necessary. So what was so important that she heads back across town with the affects of the drinking still in her system? She didnt have anything of importance with her that she could have forgot and went back for, so what was the driving force that made a drunk lady walk over 2 miles out of her way in the dark of a cold rainy night?
There is something missing here that only Kate knows...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 75
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 8:51 am: | |
Leanne, she was arrested at about 8:00 PM, and released at 01:00. Not much time to sober up when you are as drunk as she was. If she slept it off, she would have a hangover, if not completely sober, cotton mouth and a headache (normal simptoms). Both conditions make you want to find a comfortable QUIET place and sleep it off...
Shannon |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 11:22 am: | |
Hi All,
Shannon writes:
"John and the lodging house deputy both claimed she never worked the streets. John may have a personal motive; but, what is the deputy's motive for lying to the court?"
A possible motive could be that running a brothel was illegal in England at that time. I can't cite the exact statute (I'm away from my files at the moment), but there was very specific language prohibiting "keeping a house of ill-repute", or some such.
That being the case, the lodging house deputies could hardly be expected to admit under oath to knowingly allowing prostitution to occur in the lodging house. If you read the inquest testimony of Tim Donovan and the other lodging house deputies, whenever they were asked about the deceased's male companions their responses were invariably vague and evasive.
So, I wouldn't read too much into that. Under the circumstances, IMO it certainly can't be considered evidence that the women were not engaged in prostitution, even casually.
Cheers,
Jim |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 344
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 11:24 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
I agree that she most likely must have had a nasty hangover, but I think her behaviour here also shows that she is not the innocent housewife you almost makes her out to be. I don't know if she was going to meet soemone or not on Mitre Square, and I have no idea why she went there in the first place -- that we will never know, and it was not my point. But I don't think she had any reason being there unless to find a customer, on aplace that was not too close to home -- I don't think the alternative of returning home to Kelly without any money (which she had spent on drink) was that attractive to her, hangover or not (the conditons these women lived under didn't make it possible for them to consider such circumstances).
"The police didn't recognize her, nor is there any record of her having been arrested for anything other than being drunk in public the night she was murdered."
You obviously didn't read a word of what I wrote earlier, Shannon. These women were very hard for the police to identify, and they knew how to take advantage of it. She could very well be in the police records, but under other names -- and that goes for the others as well. I do want to make a note, though, that I'm drawing comclusions from how low-class prostitutes operated in Scandinavia -- it is possible that the East End women didn't use the same methods as these and as I haven't studied the London police records myself I could be wrong. But I see no reason to why they didn't use multiple aliases there as well -- it was a very effective method if you wanted to confuse the police, who at that time had little means and competense to check their stories and real identities.
"I find it hard to believe she would risk it all for a roll in the hay for the price of a glass of gin that might give her a social disease she would have passed to John and lost him if it happened. Some in the slum still had pride and dignity even if they did have other demons to deal with."
I don't want to be disrespectul, Shannon, so don't take it personally, but for someone like me who for a long time have studied the lives of prostitutes, you sound a bit naive and romantic. She was out of money, Shannon, and the fact that she was going steady with Kelly doesen't change a thing. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew what she was doing -- I have seen many such cases. It is still food for thoughts, but it can't be excluded. I think much point in this direction; their bad economy, Kate's drinking habits, the absence of a regular, steady home base -- these factors doesen't differ her form the other prostitutes. When you're poor and out of money and a bed to sleep in, you can't afford pride, Shannon.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 345
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 11:28 am: | |
"A possible motive could be that running a brothel was illegal in England at that time. I can't cite the exact statute (I'm away from my files at the moment), but there was very specific language prohibiting "keeping a house of ill-repute", or some such.
That being the case, the lodging house deputies could hardly be expected to admit under oath to knowingly allowing prostitution to occur in the lodging house. [...] So, I wouldn't read too much into that. Under the circumstances, IMO it certainly can't be considered evidence that the women were not engaged in prostitution, even casually."
Excellent points, Jim.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 77
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 12:54 pm: | |
The deputy of the lodging house states that he has never known her to be with anyone other than John. So, he is admitting that she is there, and has a partner. If he were hiding the fact that he was the deputy of a brothel, why say anything at all? In the other cases the lodging personnel pretty much deny everything.
The only thing I can see from all this is that she is guilty by association.
Shannon |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 2:54 pm: | |
Hi All,
Shannon, at the point when Wilkinson testified that "I never knew her to be intimate with any particular individual except Kelly; and never heard of such a thing", Eliza Gold and Kelly himself had already testified that Kelly had lived with Eddowes for seven years. I.e., it had already been established that they were common-law partners. So, all Wilkinson was admitting to was that common-law partners had stayed at the lodging house. AFAIK, there was nothing illegal about that, and Wilkinson's implication was that Kate *wasn't* plying trade at the lodging house.
So, he pretty much denied everything too, just in a vague, evasive way :-)
Cheers,
Jim |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 91
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 4:55 pm: | |
Shannon,
I think the points have all been covered, but basically, in the location in question "part-time" prostitution was very common. Most women would take an "honest" job if they could get it, they didn't "enjoy" being prostitutes, but it was resorted to at times. And yes, sometimes just to get a drink of gin. We have to be careful not put "our own" judgements of what we think we would do into the heads of people who are living under very different conditions than those of us who have the luxury to sit in front of a computer.
Take a look at Polly Nichols. She had a room and a job in a nice house. A luxery compared to the doss houses. What would you do?
But what does she end up doing? Stealing clothes, leaving the house and job, and returning to the streets. Why? Because she was an alcholic and the "costs" of living as she did (she could not drink) outweighed the "benefits" of living on the streets; and that benefit was the filling of her habit. Selling herself as a prostitute was just one way to fulfill a need.
Now, Eddowes may not have been quite so chronic a case, you could argue she wasn't as addicted to drink as Nichols. I accept that.
But getting a drink isn't what she needed at the time though. She's probably still quite drunk, and after sleeping some of it off, she would be more tired and looking for a place to sleep the rest of the night away.
But she has no money, and she needs a place to sleep. And to get a place to sleep, she first needs to get some money.
Next, she's seen talking to a fellow, goes into a dark square as a prostitute might do. Prostitutes expect to get some money in exchange for their services.
In other words, Kates behaviour is completely consistent with the notion that she prostituted herself, at least occasionally. And there is nothing in her behaviour of that night to suggest otherwise.
- Jeff
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 710
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
G'day,
'The police didn't recognize her, nor is there! any record of her having been arrested for anything other than being drunk in public the night she was murdered.'
Shannon, she gave police the name of "Mary Ann Kelly" and "nothing" when she was arrested. No wonder there is no record!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 347
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 5:50 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
Had to give you some stars for that one. Excellent.
Jeff,
Speaking as an Inspector, there's a position ready for you in my team anytime!
Aren't we better move this discussion to the Eddowes thread? Barnett has evidently slipped out of the subject here...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 80
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 7:20 pm: | |
Leanne, a rose by any other name is still a rose. With Kate being as drunk and loud as she was, how is it none of the officers recognized her? Even after her death no one came forward. Some can say it is a case of, "don't speak ill of the dead" but these same officers had little problem in recognizing Polly or Annie...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 81
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 7:36 pm: | |
Jeff & Glenn, what you have been describing on this thread and others about Kate, in America is called “stereo-typing” and appears to be a common theme when looking at these women. There are exceptions to every rule, and given the complete lack of evidence against Kate other than you have labeled her as such and placed her in the same category as the others because they were prostitutes there is no reason to believe she was. Even if 50% of the women in Whitechapel were prostitutes, she still gets a 50/50 coin toss. I would be the first to convict if there was any evidence to support the theory that all the women were chosen because they worked the streets, and not that they were random victims chosen by location and state of intoxication (or recovery from) which made them an easier kill for “Jack.”
In American military justice we take a different approach to solving a crime than most civilian judicial systems. To us, when charged, the person is presumed guilty and they have to prove their innocence to the court.
In the case of Polly, Annie, Mary, and (if you include her in the list of Ripper victims) Liz, none were able to prove their innocence; however in the case of Kate, there is not one shred of evidence to hold her on, and this court would release her without question.
Using the same logic with Joseph Barnett, there may not be enough evidence to uphold the conviction of being the Ripper, but there is enough to warrant a trial by courts-martial, and I would have no hesitation in prosecuting the case against him based on the evidence I have to date, which includes his mental capacity (which if convicted I would entertain a plea of diminished capacity), the physical evidence indicating he murdered Mary Kelly, and the similarities between the Kelly murder and the others.
Shannon
|
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 92
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 8:16 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
I think you've missed the fact that the conclusion that Eddowes was probably prostituting herself is based upon more than just the high level of prostitution in the area (that would be sterotyping). The latter is used only to indicate it was a common thing in the area for women to resort to, meaning Kate lived in an area where this "option" was often chosen. Hence it would not appear to be an "extreme". The conclusion is based upon her behaviour of 1) getting drunk without money 2) being seen talking "cosily" with a man 3) later going into a dark secluded square 4) her condition of intoxication suggesting her primary concern is to find a place to sleep 5) it's known she had no money for a bed and 6) actions 2 & 3 suggest prostitution, which would solve her problem of no money for a bed, her likely primary concern at the time.
This is not enough to "convict" her, as you put it, but we're not trying to convict or pass judgement on her. In a Scottish court of law this would probably be enough to return the interesting verdict of "not proven", which basically means "We aren't sure you're guilty, but don't do it again"! We're trying to understand her actions and her behaviour as victim. Because that will tell us a bit about Jack.
- Jeff
|
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 93
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 8:27 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Be happy to "join up"! And yes, this is the wrong thread for this line of things.
- Jeff |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 82
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 9:19 pm: | |
Jeff, just because something is an option, doesn’t meant it is taken. Getting drunk without money is still an art practiced today, and not everyone or even half here in America do it in exchange for sex, regardless of life style. Being seen talking "cozily" may have been a side affect of the alcohol, and not an indication of a proposition. If you have noticed women get a bit friendlier when drunk, but it doesn’t meant you can sleep with them if you offer to buy a drink or provide the means for them to continue drinking. Dark and secluded may very well have been his choice (and I believe it was) and not hers. |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 95
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 2:38 am: | |
Shannon,
We should probably move this off the Barnett thread. I'll post my reply under the Eddowes thread.
- Jeff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 397
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
Hi Shannon,
...I would have no hesitation in prosecuting the case against him [Barnett] based on the evidence I have to date, which includes his mental capacity (which if convicted I would entertain a plea of diminished capacity), the physical evidence indicating he murdered Mary Kelly, and the similarities between the Kelly murder and the others.
Eh? What do you know that we don't about Barnett's mental capacity, that would allow you to describe it as 'diminished'?
What 'physical' evidence indicates Barnett murdered MJK??
Love,
Caz
PS You talk of being the first to 'convict' Eddowes, if the evidence suggested Jack targeted only prostitutes. And you talk of the women who were not able to prove their 'innocence', and of the injustice of our suggestions that Eddowes may even once have resorted to selling sexual services, saying there is not one shred of evidence 'to hold her on', and this court would 'release her' without question. I don't think anyone else here would see these desperate women condemned, either legally or morally, for whatever methods they chose to try and survive, whether it involved getting tots of cheap gin in return for being good company, by begging, or by providing desperate men with immediate physical relief. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 398
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 10:44 am: | |
Whoops! My PS belongs on one of the latest Eddowes threads really - I've only just seen all the responses similar to my own.
Sorry all. |
gertchalife
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 10:07 am: | |
Whatever JTR was or was not, lunatic, physcopath,or just plain evil, the fact remains that he went out and targetted prostitutes and then murdered them.
This leads to the conclusion that he had an overwhelming compulsion to do these acts, regardless of which catagory of loony he falls into, whats the problem?
You can discuss his mental health till your blue in the face but thats not going to reveal his identity.
The fact of the matter is in all probability he was a faceless person ordinary to the nth degree, and very good at concealing his passions from
his immediate family and friends.
An ordinary man in all respects.
He will never be named.
The Lone Wolf. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 5:49 am: | |
Again Monty asks an intelligent and I believe important Question.Were the victims prostitutes and were they killed while offering services of that nature?.
It is not neccessary that they were either.Both Nicholls and Chapman were on the street because they had no money to pay for lodgings.Neither stated they would resort to prostitution to gain their bed.Eddowes was on the street because she had been discharged from a police station.She did not mention what she was going to do when released.
Stride seems to have had no set purpose in hanging around Berner street.As no money was found on her,it might be that she had done nothing to earn any.
Kelly had no reason to go out at 2 A.M. as her accomodation was secure untill told by the landlord to pay up or get out.That hadn,t happened.
Had Stride not said how she had earned sixpence,I suppose the common thought would be 'on her back'.Now perhaps Nicholls or was it Chapman? had earned treble the nights lodging by performing some menial tasks also.
The common denominator was how they spent their money,not how they earned it.
I can think of reasons other than sex,which
allowed the obvious trust in the person who killed them,and reasons of why they were at the locations where found.Maybe Eddowes thought she was being led through Mitre Square,and not into it.
Drink and their aversion to a normal domestic life was the probable reason they became victims.
They were certainly customers of the pubs of Whitechapel,whether they were customers of a sexual predator is open to arguement. |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 6:27 am: | |
Fred West quite early in his series killed members of his own family.
Here in South Australia,A series of twelve killings,was committed by two persons,neither of whom showed signs of mental instability.In this case all victims were known to the killers,and at least one of the first was a family member.
Profiling is just a fancy name for the old fashioned description of 'Characteristics of the crime'.It is of little value unless accompanied by more positive evidence of a physical nature,pointing to a particular subject.
In the case of Kelly,Nicholls etc.,it might be more productive in studying the means by which they spent their money,and not how they are reputed to have earned it.
All were anti social in accordance with the times,and all showed a tendency to avoid the domestic slavery that women of that period were accustomed to.This as much as anything,made them a perfect target for such a killer.
Kelly was killed not because of the company occupying her room,but because of the lack of it.
If Joe had stayed,there might have been a different ending,but such is the nature of domestic cohabitation,their lifestyle could not have endured unless Kelly changed.She might still have died,but not in the manner she did.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
