|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Ada Wilson
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Ada Wilson
Author: Tracey Stearns
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 06:45 pm |        | | Its true that most serial killers, especially those as skilled as The Ripper - start off small (trying to test his skills). However, The stabbing motion to the neck of the victim doesn't make any sence. The Ripper seems to have been too "smooth", and the victims too trusting them them to put up the kind of resistance that would be needed to escape. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 15 November 1998 - 09:36 am | | Yes, Tracey if your 'view' of Jack the Ripper is one of a progressive killer, then a clumsy attack even due to a different motive is possible.
I think it's mainly the description of the attacker that has carried this assault over the years, it sounds so much like what we have come to expect the Ripper to look like, we tend to give slight considerstion to this attack as a first attempt.
The stabbing to the neck doesn't need to make sense if it was his first attempt, and remember he wasn't trying to be the 'Ripper' because that side of him had not evolved yet.
This was a clumsy robbery attempt and if this guy didn't happen fit the typical description of what we have become familiar with as 'The Ripper' this assault would have likely been forgotten about.
Does that make sense ? |
Author: Gary Nargi
Monday, 01 February 1999 - 04:58 am | | | Do we have to believe the story that he burst in and demanded money? If she was a prostitute she may have created that part of the story to explain why she had a strange man in the room. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 01 February 1999 - 03:04 pm | | Gary -
To be blunt about it, we don't have to believe anything in the kaleidoscopic wilderness of the Ripper case. We choose to believe things, but then it is incumbent upon us to have sound reasons for our choices.
In this case, we have to remember that Ada Wilson did not call herself a prostitute. Neither did she call herself an "unfortunate," which was the usual euphemism for ladies of the night in the 1880s. Rather, she is described in the London Hospital admission records as a "machinist;" though what sort of work this entailed, I cannot tell you. Were she a prostitute, this sort of assault might almost be considered an "on the job hazard" by the police (and you might check the case of Annie Farmer on November 19, 1888 for such an example).
Wilson, however, presented herself to the hospital with her story and - so far as we know - no witnesses, so there was no one who could have accused her of having a strange man in her room. And were she a prostitute, the presence of a man in her room would have been self-explanatory.
So, at this remove, we would seem to have little reason to disbeleive Miss Wilson, though whether her fortunately non-fatal assault was at the hands of Jack the Ripper, we cannot say.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Alexis3535
Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 09:40 am | | | Hey I'm a senior in High school and i have a Term paper due at the end of April 1999. i choose Jack the Ripper as my topic but i can't seem to find anything that would pertain to my thesis statement-why he killed prostitutes. i have been searching on the net and i was reading some of your messages and i was wondering if anyone could e-mail any information to me pertaining to my statement. any information would be greatly appreciated. Alexis3535@aol.com |
Author: Timothy McDonald
Friday, 26 March 1999 - 07:50 pm | | | My name is Timothy McDonald and I am currently a student at Akron u and in my personal opinion I think the reason he murdered prostitutes is maybe a personal vendetta with a family memeber who may have been a prostitute. Or maybe he had a bad sexual experience with a prostitute. Another opinion I have on the matter is that maybe he just had a personal problem with society with all its hippocrites and whores. |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 28 March 1999 - 10:37 pm | | G'day Alexis, Timothy,
Good Luck with you paper Alexis. There are many varied theories regarding why Jack killed only prostitutes and basically mate, we'll never know until we work out who he was, and even then it mightn't become clear.
One problem with the prostitute thing is that it's possible Eddowes wasn't a prostitute, in which case Jack stuffed up completely. Either that or prostitutes weren't his sole target, just the majority of them.
Another idea is that Jack was a religious nut who thought he was doing God's work, pretty strange really when you consider Jesus saved a prostitute from getting stoned to death.
Sorry I can't help any more.
Jules |
Author: Jamie L.
Monday, 29 March 1999 - 12:29 am | | I am a senior in high school and I chose to do an English project on Lewis Carroll. I read in a Colin Wison novel on Jack the Ripper that Lewis Carroll is indeed a suspect. If anyone has any info on that it would be great. Please e-mail me with info at ddgergal@aol.com
Thanks,
Jamie |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 06:21 am | | Hi all,
Nice to see so many students out there, a proliferation in fact. Save a bit on your phone bills (or maybe someone else's!), go to your libraries, and read your young hearts out on the subjects mentioned. That way you can really start to contribute and your questions will be more focused.I gave up the student bit early on, so I'm not qualified on the benefits of college etc, but my advice is well-meant and comes free, you can decide to heed it or not.
Very best wishes to students of life everywhere.
Happy Easter,
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Frank Lodge
Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 03:37 pm | | As a novice in JtR studies (this is my first posting here though I've been reading several of the boards with interest for some time), I had never heard of Ada Wilson until I stumbled across this strand. Having read all the postings I am still in the dark without a gas-lamp and I have three questions, two of them the same I came to this strand with:
1) Who was Ada Wilson?
2) Why is she believed to be a possible JtR victim?
3) Why does no-one (with one exception) posting on this strand ever say anything about the unfortunate woman even though it bears her name?
Frank |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 30 March 1999 - 04:18 pm | | Ada Wilson was a putative 'Ripper' victim advanced by those espousing the idea that there must have been attacks by the killer preceding the recognised series.
This idea was given credence when advanced by Philip Sugden in his 1994 book The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. She was a second of such victims (the first was Annie Millwood on February 25, 1888) and the attack took place about 12.30 a.m. on the morning of March 28, 1888. She was a 39 year old widow and was about to go to bed at her home address, 9 Maidman Street, Mile End, when there was a knock at her door. She unwisely opened the door to find a stranger aged about 30 years with a sunburnt face and a fair moustache. He was about 5' 6" tall, wearing a dark coat, light trousers and a wideawake hat. He demanded money under threats, drawing a clasp knife. He stabbed her twice in the throat as she screamed and he ran off before help arrived. Although seriously injured she recovered after treatment in hospital.
There is no evidence, nor reason to suppose that she was the victim of anything but a failed robbery attempt, and in my opinion this was not a 'Ripper' attack. |
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs
Friday, 18 June 1999 - 04:28 pm | | Christopher-Michael--
Certainly, as you say, there were no witnesses present to see that she was alone in the room with a strange man, but, then, how would she explain to the hospital and/or the police the fact that she recieved two deep stab wounds to the neck which were inflicted by a person with the strength and stature of a (for the time) tall, average-build, __man__?
Secondly, "machinist" would have been a common enough answer for a woman to give. Women, I will have you know, were the very __first__ machinists, at the textile mills created by the Industrial Revolution, owing to the fact that the mills needed people with small hands and the low self-image required for drastic underpayment. Furthermore, for what it's worth, Lord Byron's niece, Ada Lovelace, was the world's first _ever_ (not just the world's first _female_) programmer of artificial intelligences. It was she who invented the language which Charles Babbage (her friend) would make the comapanies' looms understand.
The factories at which these women worked, however, kept very close watch upon them, most often boarding them at private boarding houses which enforced strict curfews. Anyone failing to get in before curfew was put out and never allowed to return to work or the boarding house. So, as I see it, she must have been turned away after getting drunk one day, gone into the -- ahem! -- seamstress' -- trade, owing to the fact that it was the only other thing she knew how to do, but, in a state of shock after being stabbed twice in the neck by a lunatic (who may have asked her for money, but that's not important), she may have automatically told them, "machinist," because perhaps she was new to prostitution and had been at the mill for a while before she was locked out.
Jack may, indeed, have been her attacker. He may, after this botched murder attempt, have deduced the stupidity of boxing himself in by staying in the house and also the idiocy of neither staying to make sure she was dead, nor cutting further, so that the victim would not live to bear witness. He ran away because he realized that he could not continue while boxed in. He resolved to pursue only more experienced prostitutes who knew that outdoor work was less-risky and less-detectable (whether you're Jack or his victim). |
Author: Jill
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 08:51 am | | Hello,
As recently interested JtR (kindergarden) pupil, I just want to add to the discussion of why the victims where whores, that they were just easy prey. Nobody realy cares if they are dead, they work at the dark hours in little alleys, and trip along with strange man they have to trust just to earn their livelyhoods.
So I personally do not believe that the Rippers mother or wife was a drunken whore (drinking goes with the territory of business and poverty).
More important to me are the age and built of the victims.
So far of what I have read of serial killers (that is not that much) they do not want to make a statement with their victims, but use the victim solely as lust object (a doll). To dissociate themselves from the victim, a whore seems the first to come to mind, certainly if the killer still would have any ethical reserves. If you look at it this way the Ripper sometimes could have made the 'mistake' to attack a woman who wasn't a whore in the poverish neighbourhood Whitechapel. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 01:26 pm | | Jill - welcome to the Casebook. No need to apologise about being in kindergarten; we all have to start somewhere.
You make an excellent point that the Ripper's mother (or lover or some such) need not have been a prostitute in order to stoke his violent rage against women. Although I see the logic in the supposition, it has never struck me as something to be consistently added to the discussion. I have known a few men in my time whose only experience of women was through loving, caring families, and yet there was a white-hot misogynistc rage there that I could not begin to fathom. We can't prove that the Ripper was spurred to his actions by personal experience with a prostitute or through sexual abuse; it does, however, provide a convenient motive, and perhaps that is why it sees the light of day so much.
The Ripper could just as well have struck out against prostitutes for the reasons you mention; they were marginalised, weak and disposable. In fact, I think that part of the appeal to the Ripper was beginning with weaker women and working his way up to stronger ones who could "give him a fight," though my thesis is barely tenable.
I am afraid, however, that we shall never know for certain.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 01:39 am | | Thanks for welcoming me,
Since I'm new I will first have to read some (a lot actually) more material. I even haven't read everyhing here on the site. And then the books of course...
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 03:55 am | | After pondering more on this attack I don't think it was Jack.
The robbery motive doesn't bother me. It is said that Jack never was known primarly as a robber. Well he is just that: he robbed the victims of their voices, there lives, their femininity, their capability of being a mother, with some their identity (faces) and he stole some organs.
It's the clumsyness of the attack that is the problem. The little tell tale with the barging in, the sudden stabs and the (immediately?) running away gives me a picture of someone very agitated, nervous and easily frightened. All this shouldn't be bothering me IF it was one of the first attempts and IF this had happened say 1887. But I can't picture a frightened man turn into a cool murderer (luring his prey, gutting her in 10 to 15 mins. while beat cops and others walk around some few meters away) within 5 months time.
Shouldn't there be more months (if years) between these 2 events to link them? Are there such examples of serial killers?
Jill |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 11:16 am | | Dear Jill,
Yes indeed there are. Serial killers very rarely start off by killing, in almost every case they work up to it usually via a series of other types of crimes, burgalry being one of the most common.
Even when a killer starts killing very rarely does he start off with his methods all neatly established.
The Yorkshire Ripper started off by coshing his victims with a gravel filled sock, when that didn't work he replaced the gravel with a half brick, when that didn't work he used a hammer and this was the weapon he employed from then on (together with various stabbing weapons)
Berkowitz attacked his first victim with a knife and was repulsed by her screams and the mess, he then moved on to a pistol, and even then he continued refining the method, even down to adjusting the grip on the pistol and his adopting the Weaver stance.
The time frame between these types of learning attacks is usually very small - they want to start killing.
Annie Millwood and Ada Wilson are typical of the type of attacks you could expect the Ripper to make. They fit the Rippers MO perfectly.
1. The victims were single women.
2. The victims were alone.
3. There were no witnesses.
4. The attacks were sudden and brutal.
Some people dismiss Wilson as a victim because of the robbery angle. I would tend to dismiss this as an excuse for having a man in her room for the following reasons.
1. Would a robber knock on the door of a strange house with the intention of robbing whoever answered. What happens if it was an irate 250lb docker.
2. If robbery was the motive why stab the person before handing over any cash. Did the perpetrator think stabbing someone was likely to make them more amenable?
3. Would a robber knock on the door in the hope a suitable victim would answer. Surely a robber would be better off hanging around pubs, seeing who has money, following them and robing them - just as street robbers do today.
4. The description of the attacker of both these women is practically identical - even down to the weapon, a clasp knife. What was the reason for the attack on Annie Millwood?
5. Remember the first victim who has been attributed to the Ripper by many people (including the Police Officers of the day) Martha Tabram. All of her injuries apart from one could have been carried out by a clasp knife.
If you don't accept Wilson and Millwood as Riper victims, what happened to their attacker. After launching two vicious potentially lethal attacks on two women, their attacker presumably went back to stamp collecting or some other hobby.
We shall never know for certain but both these poor women do fall into the pattern of serial killers.
Let me throw something else at you. Why do we assume JTR targetted prostitutes? It is far more likely that he killed whoever was around at the time and place it was convenient for him to kill, and by far the vast majority of those people would be prostitutes.
For example if you targetted young fit healthy males in Aldershot the chances are you would be attacking soldiers - but that could be because they are there, not because they are deliberate targets.
I always like to give you something to think about, have I succeeded?
yours
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jill
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 03:08 pm | | Hello Bob,
Thanks for the enlightenment. As I said the robbery tale did not really bother me, but I overlooked the possibilities you have mentioned.
Actually the clumsyness wasn't a problem neither, really. I don't believe you just start the right way immediately (even killing is something you have to start learn somewhere, with its faults in between).
Only the short time of 5 months worried me. But since the short time lapse isn't actual that rare, I guess I have to put Ada Wilson back up the possibility list again (!&%$£µ#$%ç!!).
And NO I don't think he was particularly after prostitutes who reminded him of his prostitute mother. I know serial killers and many other assaillants first go for the weaker one. Which in this case is a pour drunken prostitute. This was one of the first things I was certain about (please, don't shatter this one too????). Only in time do they gradually go up for victims who are more daring, richer, more secured, ...
And the other certainty is that he went after WOMEN, which could have been the mother or wife, or sister, or highshool cheerleader figure (trying to shatter this one, will be a hard knut to crack indeed!).
Cheers Jill |
Author: Jill
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 07:10 am | | Bob
You mentioned in point 4 that the description of the atacker(s?)of Annie Milwood and Ada Wilson were similar.
Annie Millwood was attacked by a 'stranger' with clothing with a 'pocket' where he took his knife out. Ada Wilson gives a full (almost) description of height, features and clothing. And she doesn't actually say 'stranger', although the description would imply him as such. I can't even compare the description of the attacker.
Annie said the attack was with a clasp knife. Ada only mentioned being stabbed. We assume it was a knife, a clasp knife as that.
The only similarity I find at the moment is that they were alone in their room, they were about the same age and they were brutally stabbed (both on different places).
Did I miss some revelation? Do you posess more precise information than I have on this matter? If yes, can you fill me in or direct me to a reference?
Cheers Jill |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 10:50 am | | Dear Jill,
I believe the weapon used in both attacks was reported as a clasp knife.
You are correct about the wounds being different, but they tend to back up my theory. The first wounds were reported as being in the legs and lower part of the body, which could mean in the stomach and genital area. Finding this failing to kill his victim, he next chooses a different target, this time the throat, this also fails to have the desired effect. Now look at Tabrams injuries, both the throat and the lower part of the body have this time been attacked. Progression?
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jill
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 11:00 pm | | Hi Bob-
I admit that they are just what is needed for a progression theory and fit nicely before Martha Tabram. Tabram herself could have been a victim too as far as the progressive MO goes, but since there is no undoubtful evidence at this moment to disprove a soldier being the culprit, I can't convincingly file her under one of Jack's victims.
All 3 (Millwood, Wilson and Tabram) are on my possible victims list, but I need more feedback before really accepting them as one.
Cheers
Jill |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 10:55 am | | Dear Jill,
Lets have a look at the likelyhood of a soldier being the killer of Tabram. A soldier would be on leave, and if you are looking at the soldier last seen with her as the suspect, it would in all probability be night leave (soldiers on longer passes changed into mufti as quickly as possible). This would entail a soldier heavily bloodstained returning to barracks and having to pass under the watchful eye of the corporal of the guard. Now don't you think that when the regiments were mustered this might have jogged someones memory?
Don't forget despite all the regiments being mustered, I believe, three times no one was identified correctly.
Apart from this there is nothing to connect a soldier with her murder except that she was seen in the company of one several hours before her body was discovered, a pretty tenuous link I think.
There are some who believe that the wound to her chest was caused by a bayonet. This is not so, Dr Killeen is reported to have said the wound was caused by some sort of dagger or possibly a sword bayonet, but this was distinguish the type of blade ie a fairly long, sharp pointed, rigid blade as opposed to the type of blade which could of caused the other wounds which in his opinion was an ordinary clasp knife. The possibilities are:
1. There were two killers each with a different weapon. Unlikely unless you can accept the situation where one killer is so enraged he hacks the corpse to pieces with 38 stab wounds and the other killer steps forward and daintily places his blade once into her chest.
2. One killer used two knives. Possible a very similar case has been reported in England.
3. One killer, one knife but two blades, also very possible. Years ago I purchased in Australia a bone handled hunting knife. The main blade was a clip pointed (Bowie type) blade designed for slashing and gutting. In the handle there were also two other fold out, smaller blades, just like a normal pocket knife's.
Don't forget most of the worlds knives were being made in Sheffield at the time, many a frontiersman carried a handsome bowie knife that originated in England, and remember what a bowie is designed for , slashing ripping and hacking.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 12:33 pm | | Hi Bob
I'd like to discuss Tabram with you, but I'll send my post on the Marta Tabram board. Hope to see you there.
Cheers
Jill |
Author: jamie royston
Tuesday, 10 August 1999 - 05:59 pm | | Hello. I read earlier in the message boards that maybe jack was basically disgusted with the society filled with who everyone called whores. I believe he was sick enough to believe he was doing good by killing off these women because he also liked what he was doing. In the CASEBOOK WEBSITE there were letters that were supposedly written by him. Are any of them actually factual?
jamie |
Author: Christopher George
Wednesday, 11 August 1999 - 04:39 am | | Hi, Jamie:
There is no evidence that any of the letters sent to the authorities were genuine. If any are authentic, the ones thought to be more likely to be from the killer are the Dear Boss letter dated September 25 and received by the Central News Agency September 27 and the undated "Saucy Jacky" postcard received by the CNA on October 1 and the Lusk letter sent with half a human kidney to George Lusk, president of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, and received October 16, 1888. A number of authors accept these communications or other letters as being genuine in accordance with whether they think their preferred suspects could have sent them.
Chris George |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 04:10 am | | Hi All,
Has anyone noticed something peculiar about the description Ada Wilson gives about her attacker: SUNBURNT face, on MARCH 28.
What does a sunburnt face suggest: you either work in daytime, outdoors; you went abroad where it was really sunny; you went skiing; faked it by putting on some tanning cream or got it from a sunbathingbench. The last 3 options, were not available in that period of time.
That leaves us the working outdoors and abroad option. Now I'm sure there is some difference between the weather of Belgium and England, but it is fairly the same. At the end of March you normally had nothing more than a total of two (?) weeks pale sunshine. So if it was someone who had worked the land during winter (december-february) he could not have looked strikingly sunburnt -> it is someone who came from warmer and sunnier parts of the world.
Was it then someone who could afford to go travelling for pleasure or was it someone who had to work abroad? If he was rich enough for pleasure, he should not have tried to rob Ada, and it wasn't fashionable to look sunburnt.
-> The attacker was someone who was abroad for a period of time during winter and had to work outdoors to earn his living. That suggests either a SAILOR or SOLDIER (who just came back from the Indies). |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 07:33 am | | JILL: Well thought out! Our long-timers have probably heard every theory under the sun, but this is a idea that's new to me ... I always benefit from reading your posts, but this one is extra good.
Thanks,
Ashling |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 08:01 am | | Hi Ashling,
A pity we have to keep in mind that this knowledge is only applyable on the atacker of Ada Wilson, not JtR. Anyway, we got some more clues on this particular b*****d.
I also thought about other professions, like salesmen, actors, plantation farmers, ... but either they do not enough daywork outside, or they are too rich.
Let the sun shine in! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 07:00 am | | Taking things further of the attackers' occupation. Soldiers wore their uniforms all the time, even when on leave, didn't they? If being soldier is then an option, it should have been a retired one. But at that age!
The description of clothing Ada gives also accords more with that of a sailor. So my bet is on a SAILOR. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 04:37 pm | | | What about a trusted servant who had followed his master to Biarritz for the off-season ? Someone who spent his time in the open air , like a coachman or a coach footman perhaps. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Saturday, 29 April 2000 - 04:51 pm | | I agree with Ashling, Jill, a fine piece of deduction however I can see some problems with it. First, if we are to believe exactly what Wilson stated then we are dealing with a man who had a sunburn rather than a suntan. Second, if it was a sunny day on the 26th or 27th, a few hours in the sun could have caused the sunburn to the attackers face. A sailor or soldier back from the Indies would have a suntanned face and would not be burnt. The same goes for an outdoor labourer who had worked over the winter in some more southern climate. The sunburn would suggest either an overindulgence of sun after the long winter months or someone who was not used to the sun after a period of time, perhaps at her Majesties pleasure in one of her prisons?
Wolf. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 09:12 am | | Hi Wolf,
I have thought of the same problem too. But my, and I know at the moment this is only a weak argument, first interpretation of 'sunburnt face' was a face that was deep brown and rinkled of being a long time in the sun. In literal interpretation this is not correct. But then we interpete it as used in modern language, so at the moment I'm perusing English literature of that time to find out the most probable meaning of 'sunburnt': either a face red as a tomatoe or a tanned face.
Jill |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 04:59 pm | | Hi, Jill:
A man who was drunk, who had a highly florid or ruddy (red) face, might also give the impression of being sun-tanned. This might fit in with our discussion of whether the man or men involved in the East End murders were impaired by alcohol. Certainly we know the women were drinkers and probably the men who were with them were drinkers as well. We might think, for example, of the blotchy faced man accompanying Mary Jane Kelly on her last night and who was carrying the quart pail of beer.
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 02 May 2000 - 10:12 pm | | JILL, CHRIS G.: Interesting points, hope to hear more.
WOLF: I plump for James Kelly--recently escaped from Broadmoor ... not as JtR, but as the attacker of Wilson, Millwood & perhaps others. Any thoughts? Do you attribute Ada Wilson's attack to JtR or to another somebody?
Surfed the Internet quite a bit the last few days, but not yet found detailed info on late March weather in London. The east coast of America experienced a record breaking blizzard in mid-March of 1888 (see URL below). This might not be relevant at all, but I had to start somewhere.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/blizzard.html
Ashling |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 03 May 2000 - 03:56 am | | Hi All,
Ashling - Normally the Western coastline of Europe (including the British Isles) will be festered with the residues of storms that crossed the Atlantic in a week or two time. Much thanks for your search.
Chris George - Thank you for the alternative. Still I think pimple red from being tipsy gives another appearance than the word 'sunburnt'. If he would have been that tanned because of drunkenness, wouldn't Ada not have smellt it?
All - To add to the discussion if the attacker was a client or an intruder, my hinch goes to an intruder. if he were a client, she could have given the police a far more better account than she had: his speech accent, colour of eyes and hair, scars, drunkenness, ... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 03:29 am | | Hi Jill,
Something I saw the other night on tv brought me back to your post of Tuesday, May 2, 2000 - 09:12 am, in which you wrote:
'...my, and I know at the moment this is only a weak argument, first interpretation of 'sunburnt face' was a face that was deep brown and rinkled of being a long time in the sun. In literal interpretation this is not correct. But then we interpete it as used in modern language, so at the moment I'm perusing English literature of that time to find out the most probable meaning of 'sunburnt': either a face red as a tomatoe or a tanned face.'
I had thought exactly the same thing when I first read the 'sunburnt' testimony, just a gut feeling for the language. Then I watched the documentary on Walter: My Secret Life, and the anonymous little Victorian sauce-pot came out with the words,
"I had my eye on a pretty sunburnt field girl..."
which seems to lend weight to the argument that 'sunburnt' may have been commonly used to mean 'weathered' or 'suntanned'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 11 May 2000 - 06:23 am | | Thank you Caz,
I have been reading up, but then I tend to go with the story and forget why I was rereading the book anyway. So now I'm reading with a postal on my books saying 'sunburnt'.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 19 May 2000 - 04:41 am | | A couple of stray thoughts:
Ada Wilson's attacker was wearing a wideawake hat, which might make James Kelly a bit iffy.
It's been argued (but I can't now remember by whom or in what source) that it would be unlikely that a seafaring Ripper would have strayed as far as Whitechapel to commit his crimes, since there were plenty of prostitutes closer to the docks. This argument convinced me for a long time, until I remembered Francis Coles. Thomas Saddler, just off his ship in Wapping, went straight to Whitechapel for his drunken, brawling binge.
And what of Lawende's description of the man seen with Eddowes as looking like a sailor?
With the sun being low in the sky, I think it would be difficult to get a sun tan in England in March, without spending LOTS of time outdoors. A prisoner, yes. Or a sailor. Or a vagrant. Maybe a few other types.
Cricket anyone?
RJP |
|
|
|
|
