Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 02:21 am |        |
G'day Peter,
What makes you think that Bruce Paley's Barnett theory doesn't support the murder of Elizabeth Stride being JtRs?
I have never doubted it for long!
Opening Paley's book to page 93, it says: 'In the three years preceeding her death, Stride had been living on and off with Michael Kidney at 38 Dorset Street, no more than a couple of dozen yards from where Barnett and Kelly were then living.'
Leanne? |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 04:18 pm | |
My apologies Leanne
Quoting from a distant memory of Bruce Paley's book I remember thinking that he discounted at least one of the accepted five victims as being Jack's work.
It was in fact Catherine Eddowes' that I believed he was referring to and not as I had at first thought Liz Stride. Read this bit from Bruce's book:
All of the ripper victims, (with the possible exception of Catherine Eddowes, who may have only appeared to be one), were known prostitutes.
You can read that one of two ways, either he thought Eddowes wasn't a ripper victim or he thought she wasn't a prostitute. What do you think?
And thanks again for correcting me on Stride. It is in fact Paul Harrison who discounts Stride as a Ripper victim, quote The mutilations on Mary Kelly's body were far greater than those inflicted on any of the previous three victims. (I discount Stride as a ripper victim).
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 06:17 pm | |
G'day Peter,
It is quite well known that Catharine Eddowes wasn't a known prostitute. She said that she had returned from hop-picking to claim the reward for turning in the murderer, so some believe she had made arrangements to meet him, and perhaps bribe him.
But I believe she was just a random pick that Jack made after he failed to satisfy his lust-for-blood with Elizabeth Stride. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. She may or may not have had the right suspect in mind. She could have just known him by sight!
Leanne! |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 11:11 am | |
Hi, Peter:
I agree with Leanne that Bruce Paley's meaning was that Catherine Eddowes was not a known prostitute. That is, she was not a habitual street walker in the same way the other women were, although to my mind it does look as if she was soliciting on the night of her death. In any case, Paley definitely was not saying she wasn't a Ripper victim.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 02:07 pm | |
Hardly likely that she would agree to meet with a man who had butchered at least two other women before that night, though?
And if she had arranged the meet, most fortunate that she got released from the cop shop in time!
Regards
Peter. |
