|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
A Circle of Friends?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
A Circle of Friends?
Author: Christopher-Michael
Friday, 11 December 1998 - 03:05 pm |        | NOTE: This posting stems from points raised by AMP and Jeff D, and is the beginning of a discussion concerning the recurring topic of whether the canonical five Ripper victims knew each other. It is designed to stimulate conversation, and is not intended to be a definitive pronouncement. Some of the points I raise here have been made in other posts of mine on the same topic; to those familiar with them, I beg indulgence.
A question that occasionally arises in conjunction with the Ripper case by both those new to it and longstanding students concerns relationships. It is a fairly cliched (though nonetheless true) axiom that the most likely suspect in a murder case will be found among the victim's relatives or friends. This approach was used in 1888 and has been sporadically revived through to our own day. Unfortunately, save for speculation in the cases of Elizabeth Stride and Mary Jane Kelly, no one then or now has been able to identify a suspect with proven links to each of the five murdered women. It is from that failure that an alternate approach is born: if there is no commonality to be found in suspects, perhaps there is a connection among the victims themselves - that they were not killed by desperately unlucky chance, but because of who they were and what they were to each other. In the simplest of terms, then, could the five have been a circle of friends?
Stephen Knight, in "JTR: the Final Solution," raised this point for the present generation when he asserted that although the five were killed in different areas of the East End, they all lived in one small circumscribed area of Spitalfields. That is, at the time of their deaths, all lived either on or close by Flower and Dean Street. This assertion was followed to an extent by A.P. Wolf in "Jack the Myth," presenting the seeming conundrum of Crossingham's lodging house at 35 Dorset Street. He attempts to show a link among it and the murders of Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman as well as to the phantom fiend labelled "Leather Apron."
Knight's theory has a superficial plausibility to it, as it can seem to novice and veteran alike that the same addresses recur over and over through the Whitechapel Murders. In addition to Flower and Dean Street, there is George Street: Tabram's last address was no. 19, Emma Smith's no. 18, and Kelly is supposed at one time to have lived on the street. At different times, Annie Millwood (suggested by Philip Sugden as the first Ripper victim) and Frances Coles both lived in the lodging house at no. 8 White's Row, as did Nichols and Coles in a lodging house at 18 Thrawl Street.
Wolf sounds an even eerier note with his presentation - at 35 Dorset Street lived Mary Ann Connolly (friend to Tabram), victims Chapman and Stride and house deputy Timothy Donovan, who claimed to know "Leather Apron." And across the street from this address stood the entrance to Kelly's home at 13 Miller's Court. Already, we seem to be forming the outlines of a conclusion, yet we must consider a few things before we go too far.
The recurrence of addresses is not necessarily significant. Flower and Dean, George, Dorset and White's Row all were within the lodging house quarter of Spitalfields. Some of these houses held upwards of 200-300 people per night; not only locals, but transients, needy people from the corners of the East End, idlers, tramps, sailors and such all drawn into the great cesspool of the Empire. It would be only logical for poor Whitechapel prostitutes to patronise the closest establishments to hand. In such a constricted area, the canonical five may well have known each other by sight, as they would have "known" (in the limited sense of the word) dozens of other people whom they saw daily. It is important to remember, however, that proximity does not presuppose intimacy. I may see a woman walking her dog each morning as I fetch the newspaper. If this happens enough times, I may become familiar enough with her appearance to say hello, check my time by her progress or idly wonder if she is well if she fails to walk by one day. I am familiar with her, but not intimate. It is a superficial knowledge based on a common location, and so may it have been with the Ripper women.
The 'circle of friends' argument is often used as a support for the theory that Joseph Barnett (Kelly's lover) was Jack the Ripper, Paul Harrison going so far as to say "each victim [was] pre-selected as a friend of Kelly." This supposition is attractive, providing as it does both motive and explanation for many of the baffling points in the case. Unfortunately, it loses its appeal when we return to the fact that no one has yet proven any personal connection among the five murdered women. It also tends to raise more questions, among them: why would Kelly have let four of her friends die without realising or warning of their danger? How did Nichols, only recently arrived in Whitechapel, so quickly become such an intimate of Kelly's that she had to be killed (this is also, in my opinion, an objection to including her in Knight's 'blackmailing' gang)? Were the five such intimate friends that the death of one would inevitably lead to the next in the series, one would expect some evidence of that familiarity to have come down to us - Stride speaking to the coroner's inquest on Chapman, perhaps, or Kelly talking to a man from the "Star" about the death of Catharine Eddowes. We might even reasonably expect that by the time of the "double event," someone would have stepped forward to remark how curious it was that only a certain tiny band of women seem to be the ones slaughtered. Yet, from the thousands of words that pour out at us from statements, interviews and files, we will search in vain for such a thought.
A reasonable objection to the above might be made at this point. We can, it will be said, place the victims in proximity to each other, three on the same street and even possibly two in the same lodging house or pub. There must be a connection. "Must be," however, are two of the most dangerous words in the field of Ripperology. My response would be that in such a limited area the probability is high that there are links, though we do not know what. It seems to me, however, that the connection speaks more to the Ripper being familiar with his victims than they with each other. If we narrow the area in which the five women congregate, we also limit the area of the Ripper. Return again to my example of the woman walking her dog. Is it too much to imagine the man who will become Jack the Ripper treading Flower and Dean on his way to work or dossing down in Crossingham's, seeing the same women each day and then - when the inchoate rage in him began to crystallise into cold, furious murder - watching them surreptitiously, noting their habits and routes and companions, finally selecting one to strike down?
Perhaps so. In fact, in view of my insistence on proof that can most likely never be found, that last is unwarranted speculation of a type this field is well without. But it is an avenue, I think, worth considering if only for the briefest of moments, and even should it prove more will o' the wisp than solid matter.
Further reading on this point can be found in chapter 18, "Murderer of Strangers," in Sugden's "Complete History of JTR" and chapter 2, "35 Dorset Street," of Wolf's "Jack the Myth" as well as in scattered locations throughout other Ripper books and on the Casebook (specifically, "Did the victims know each other?" by AMP in the "Ripper Victims" General Discussion section).
I should close by saying the above is merely a brief statement of the subject as I see it, and I have not explored all the probabilities nor supported or debunked all points concerning this topic. I welcome further discussion by anyone who is interested.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 11 December 1998 - 03:34 pm | | C-M:
I commend you on your very well written discussion of whether the victims knew each other. I will eagerly monitor this board to see how the debate evolves.
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 11 December 1998 - 04:54 pm | | Hey, CM.
Very nice job. Can I also suggest a few points of commonality amongst the victims -- specifically regarding their lodgings, but expandable into contributing factors in their victimization? In posting this message, I am in no way trying to debunk or minimize the potential importance/significance of the victims' being known to one another.
Here are some other commonalities that might cause us to see a relationship that did not exist, or were contributing factors to the start of the suspected relationships:
1) Poverty: The affordability of certain loding houses may have been the primary factor in where these women stayed.
2) Availability: People who are still classified as poor may have small savings or a small, dependable job that provides them with more secure and better housing options. The longer a person takes to earn their "doss" money, the chances decrease of their finding places in these "better" lodgings, and increase their chances of ending up in the 200/300-bed lodging houses.
3) Successfulness: (I don't know a better way of terming this.) This factor is implied from the first two. It can also be replaced by the fourth. The more "successful" the women were in earning the money -- either through prostitution or some other physical labor -- the sooner they could pick a better bed for the night.
4) Thriftiness: (Again, I don't know a better way to put this.) This factor supposes that even if the women were successful in earning "doss" money in time to choose better lodgings, their lifestyles caused them to quickly lose the money and have to start again...sometimes at very dangerous, lonely hours.
All four of these factors seem common to the "traditional five"...seemingly, with the exclusion of Kelly. Kelly may have been rising or have risen from these circumstances, making her an exception. But on the night of her death, circumstances both in and out of her control put her back on the streets at dangerous, lonely hours....just like the others.
There seems little testimony by friends or relations to the victims, or anecdoctal testimony from newspapers, that the women had any significant prior knowledge of one another.
I suppose I'm offering socio-economic similarities between the victims in place of an intimate/acquaintance or even the more obvious geographical relationship (the limited area where the five had to or chose to live).
Their only significant relationship appears to be that they ended up dead...more likely than not by the same murderer. Victim typology (or the unpronouncable Victimology) is covered in an excellent book by Steven Egger called The Killers Among Us. He calls murder victims like the traditional five the "Less-Dead" or "Less-Human." He is referring to the way society "cares" about who is the victim of the murder and, thus, how much time/money/interest are given to the murder inquiry. It takes a larger number of "Less-Human" bodies to attract police, press, and public/society attention, it's sad to say.
I guess I'm saying that commonality among the victims should not be exclusively concerned with friendship or peer relationships ("they knew/might have known each other"). If prior knowledge amongst the victims is to be supposed as a major factor in their selection by a murderer, you still are left with questions arising from:
1) Did these five women ONLY have each other as friends or acquaintances?
2) If the killer knew these five, and the five shared more friends/acquaintances among each other than just themselves, isn't he as likely to have known their other common friends/acquaintances?
3) And vice versa; the surviving friends would have known him and his relations with the victims, their friends....thus attracting police attention from this group of potential informers?
4) Since obviously the victims did not ONLY know each other (consider testimony at public inquests and newspaper interviews), then why were these five killed out of a larger, common circle of friends/acquaintances?
After answering those four questions, I think you're back to where you started...trying to find something else that linked these five victims besides possible prior friendship/aquaintanceship or a potentially common murder suspect. No?
Yaz |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Friday, 11 December 1998 - 11:09 pm | | Hi All
Just a few thoughts on this topic, most proficiently reintroduced by Christopher-Michael.
Given the exhaustive investigations of the police, various 'private detectives' and the gentlemen of the press, all of whom knew the ground and people far more intimately than ever anyone today can, it seems reasonable to conclude that had any significant contact existed between these ladies it would have been uncovered at the time.
The Press in particular was rather adept at exploiting even the most insignificant coincidence in the attempt to forge these crimes into a series in the public imagination. Is it therefore really likely that anything of such potential significance as the victims actually knowing each other would have been overlooked or not reported?
It seems far more likely that socio-economic 'status' and 'opportunity', dictating the locale and residences open to these unfortunates, and the fact that they met similar ends, provides the only real correspondence between them.
Of course, in the absence of acquaintance between the victims, and assuming for the moment that all met their fate at the same hands, it could well be extrapolated that all may have been even transitorily acquainted individually with their killer. Or it may have been simply that they had the random misfortune to reside in the killer's psychological 'comfort zone', an area which he knew well and felt at ease in. This, however, does not necessarily sharpen the focus on the identity of the killer, or even narrow the search down to lower class residents of the East End. Many more people frequented Whitechapel than the transient 'teeming masses' condemned to live there.
So perhaps whatever connections are construed and represented will remain, now as then, those that best serve the preferred image to be created.
Cheers
Alex |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 11 December 1998 - 11:53 pm | | Hey, Alex,
I agree on your point regarding the identity of JtR and the possibility of extrapolating it from any real or suspected acquaintance between the victims...even socio-economic relationships won't help there.
However...and there's always a however between you and I, huh?...that's not the point in searching out information and drawing inferences from the data. I do think that a look at the victims, their circumstances, etc. might bring into sharper focus what JtR was or what he was doing. Personally, I find it difficult to hold any one image of JtR...he seems a most subtly changeable creature!
For instance, I think none of the women were found in possession of anything even semi-precious...let alone rings (brass or otherwise) or even a few pennies they might have earned before meeting their murderer. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Was this just coincidence? Or an element of their poverty? Or a fetish of the murderer to collect souvenirs? Or was plain and simple, old-fashioned robbery not beneath the murderer -- a baser motive below/above his other theorized motives for the murders?
One question for Alex: Can you provide an estimate on how extensive was the daily coverage of these crimes in the press? Number of columns out of how many total columns...or any unit of measure that's convenient. It would be nice to get a quantitative feeling for what was going on in the public sector; maybe we can extrapolate what these women knew and STILL went out at very dangerous times and places in the night.
I'd also recommend Egger's book to you -- though just borrow or take it out at the library. It covers the media's role in the serial murder phenomenon. And Egger's brutally honest on what we know, how we know it, and quantifies as much as he can.
Yaz |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 12 December 1998 - 04:51 am | | Hello All. The questions raised here and on the board which spawned it ("Did the victims know each other?") have given rise to some incisive and thought-provoking analysis, especially from C-M. I've just had one idea which could open a little window on this subject.
Did anybody from the police or the press ever tackle Mr and Mrs Walter Ringer on the matter? They kept 'The Britannia' pub which Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly both used frequently. The Ringers were in a good position to comment on these victims generally, including the matter of whether there was any social contact between them. For instance they might have seen Chapman and Kelly talking or drinking together. I don't remember reading any statements by Ringer or his wife, has anybody else? |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 12 December 1998 - 10:10 am | | Hello Everybody !
While I appreciate everything that Christopher-Michael said, and can find nothing to argue against, I do think that we still cannot dismiss the possibility that there just could be a link in there somewhere.
When we begin to appreciate that there were 233 common lodging houses in the area, for example, the fact that Crossinghams does appear so often in the enquiries, may just give a person cause to consider a possible line of enquiry. One possibility to consider, is the lodging house keeper, "Timothy Donovan". In a post on the older message boards, I had mentioned that we may have a more fruitful search, if we started looking for possible build-up crimes of major suspects before 1888 rather than concentrating on the period itself, or after. The villain, who was to become known as Jack the Ripper was very clever at covering his tracks after the murders, but before the murders, he may have just left some kind of calling card, or indication of his future ambitions. Good arguments, and problems with this approach were fed back, but again, we just cannot discount any sensible possibility totally out of hand. Many sensible approaches have been tried over 110 years and the culprit still remains unidentified.
Just look into all the connections there is with Crossinghams for example. I'm not saying they were all the best of friends, and the canonical five were drinking buddies, but if the Ripper did associate himself within this group, he may have identified the characteristics of his prey, before he stalked, then murdered and mutilated them. The lodging house keeper Donavon, may just have been the Timothy Donovan who repeatedly appeared before Thames Magistrates Court on "Assault" charges during 1887/8 and could also be the same Timothy Donovan, who murdered his wife in 1904. (thanks to A-Z)
These possible connections, although nowhere near conclusive, I think can cause one to consider a slender link, between the victims, Crossinghams, and Donavan, that just may be worthy of further consideration ?
Thanks All !
Jeff D |
Author: Bob_c
Saturday, 12 December 1998 - 11:14 am | | Hi all,
On the question of the circle of friends, much of excellence has already been posted above, giving me not much room for comment. I do feel, however, that the theory that the five were close friends must be limited by the fact that at the subsequent inquests, the names of the next victims were not mentioned.
It is a general police procedure, and was then as well, that close friends of the victim are interviewed as well as other witnesses. It was testified at Kelly's inquest, for example, that she went around usually in the company of friends.
If it may be assumed that these friends were also prostitutes, all working together for safety, then their names would be in any case have popped up during the inquiries. If not prostitutes but still good friends then probably even so, when not so intense.
Certainly, as CM points out, they could have, in some cases must have, been familiar with each other. They all worked in a certain area, would have drunk (and solicited) at least occasionally at the same locals and had the same profession.
They were, so to speak, even rivals for the clients and would thus have kept an eye on each other. Some of the clients would have been ‚regulars' who would know more than one of the girls and presumably would introduce them, have social as well as sexual intercourse, give out rounds etc. Even in the London of the time, or better especially in the London of the time, without TV, PC, etc., the Public house was the recreative middle-point for many. The point from Viper (Hi) about the Ringers at the Britannia is very valid.
To say that the five were close friends, I think, would be too risky. They could, of course, even have been enemies of each other, fighting for the available trade, but that assumes rather a lot. If they were not close friends, then the theory of a circle-based murder does stay on rather shaky legs.
Bob |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 12 December 1998 - 01:42 pm | | Hi, all:
I agree that if there was a substantial link between these women it would have been uncovered at the time by the press or the police. The police in particular were under the gun to solve the murders, so one would think that if these ladies knew each other, such a circumstance would have been readily discovered. More likely, as C-M DiGrazia noted in his eloquent opening statement, they knew each other by sight and nothing more. In my opinion, what ties them together is Jack. Whatever agenda he had, be it the simple one of murdering prostitutes, or murdering them for some other characteristic that they shared in common, remains the great unanswered question in this series of crimes.
Chris George |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Saturday, 12 December 1998 - 10:37 pm | | Yaz
As far as your inevitable 'however' is concerned, I fully agree, but (my inevitable 'but') I don't think anything in my posting suggested otherwise. I simply expressed my thoughts, formulated after considering alternatives, on this topic. I did not suggest such alternatives or other factors should not be considered.
Your point on the changeable image of Jack certainly strikes a chord, but (there's that damned 'but' again) perhaps this is merely the inevitable product of the various ways in which the character has been presented.
On your query regarding the Press, having only relevant reports not complete newspapers to hand, I'm afraid I can offer little specific statistical support to your sought after quantitative comparison.
But regardless of comparative quantity I think you can rest assured of the fact, widely recognised and acknowledged, that between September and December 1888 the prolonged sensational reporting in a range of media, from 'respectable' Daily Newspapers to 'Penny Dreadfuls' and the posters that advertised them, elevated Whitechapel murders to the status of major popular spectacle, not just in the East End or London but nation-wide and beyond. Few if any would have been unaware of the dangers faced by those who walked the East End streets at that time, and we have evidence to suggest that at least three of the canonical were well acquainted with the fact.
Barnett claims to have read reports of the crimes to Kelly. John Kelly told a Star reporter on 3rd Oct that before Eddowes took her leave of him for the last time, to visit her daughter, they had been talking of the Whitechapel Murderer and she promised not to be back late. And, in the Times of 9th Oct, the famed Dr. Barnardo claimed to have addressed a number of persons, including Stride, on the recent murders in the lodging house at No. 32 Flower and Dean-street, only four days before the 'Double Event'.
Sorry I can't be of more help, and apologies to others for this post being inserted so far down the line to be completely out of context. With a veritable clan of Chisholms, of varying ages, fighting for control of the computer at any one time, I have to take my rightful place at the end of the cue.
Best Wishes
Alex |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 12 December 1998 - 11:53 pm | | Hey, Alex!
Am I deluding myself, or are we agreeing more often? And I do have more thoughts on this changeable JtR but don't know where to put them on the Casebook. It seemed a very unpopular idea when I mentioned JtR's mutability in other posts. Ah well.
Anyway, the reason I raised the issue of what must have been dreadfully obvious to everyone in London in 1888 (as it is to us now), is this: Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly -- along with the unknown number of others who luckily did not cross paths with the murderer -- may have had a death wish (conscious or unconscious) when they cruised the streets when and where they did.
It seems unlikely. Stride stood near a rowdy socialist club; Kelly picked up a man in front of Hutchinson. But I thought I'd mention it, just to shoot it down. (Beat you to it!)
We have to stop agreeing like this,
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 13 December 1998 - 07:56 am | | Yaz:
Am I dreaming but did you really say:
"Anyway, the reason I raised the issue of what must have been dreadfully obvious to everyone in London in 1888 (as it is to us now), is this: Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly -- along with the unknown number of others who luckily did not cross paths with the murderer -- may have had a death wish (conscious or unconscious) when they cruised the streets when and where they did."
Yaz, these women were DESPERATE. Kelly for example was way behind on her rent. The other victims often needed to earn a few coppers to obtain a bed for the night. I think the notion that they had a death wish is ridiculous. On the contrary, these women were trying to LIVE rather than die, even though that meant degrading themselves to do so.
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 13 December 1998 - 11:18 am | | Chris,
Don't mistake what I said as callousness. Of course they were desperate. And I in no way denigrate them for their means of earning a living at that time. I already brought up all these issues, remember? But there are 24 hours in a day, and better/safer venues that other successful prostitutes used. Prostitution is a risky business anyway let alone having a JtR on the loose. Even in desperate circumstances, they could have made safer choices of where to be and when to be there.
And I said: "It seems unlikely. Stride stood near a rowdy socialist club; Kelly picked up a man in front of Hutchinson. But I thought I'd mention it, just to shoot it down. (Beat you to it!)" Even in their last hours, the victims showed some consciousness of being safer the closer they were to other people, even strnagers. Eddowes might have known of the patrols in Mitre Square, and may have known of the presence of the warehouse worker (ex-PC), so even she shows evidence of safety awareness in what might otherwise be viewed as a dark and lonely spot.
It is unlikely that a death-wish was conscious; but it isn't demeaning or degrading to the victims to suggest the mere possibility that their degraded status and almost insufferable struggle for survival may have left them with a more tenuous hold on life, unconsciously. Chapman, after all, is suggested as being so ill that she was likely to die soon of disease. How much more of a struggle did that brave, desperate woman put up just to force herself to work in prostitution? Desperation breeds a disregard for one's own well-being. A desire to be finished with that struggle is more than understandable, and further demonstrates the desperate conditions of women in Whitechapel in 1888! The prevelence of alcohol in most of the victims' lives shows the need to numb themselves to their reality. But none of these women committed suicide -- they were murdered in the midst of their struggle to live and survive.
In this topic, the focus seems to be on how these five came to be the traditional victims of JtR. All of the responsibility for the killings rests on the murderer. But how the victim came to be where she was, when she was, is a part of the sad equation of a sadisitic killer, plus a victim, equalling a horrible murder.
Yaz |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 07:37 pm | | All,
I hope I am not too late (3 years since the last posting) to join in this subject focus thread.
I believe the closness in distance of the canonical five's residences on the last day of their lives may be relevant (not so much that they new each other). I am starting to speculate that JTR could have been lodging in the same doss houses as his victims. Or, at the very least, he was hanging around a lot on Flower & Dean Street and Dorsett street, since all victims began their last few hours leaving these locations.
Below is a posting I did earlier tonight under the General/Miscellaneous/Conicidences message board.
I thought it would be worthwhile to post it here also:
All,
Here is what I have gleaned, thus far, as coincidental closeness of the residences of the canonical five victims.
Mary Ann Nichols: was residing her last few days at the Lodging house on 56 Flower & Dean. It seems she left that premise early afternoon the last day of her life. At 1:40 am, she was turned away from the Lodging house at 18 Thrawl Street for no doss money, just one block south of Flower & Dean. A few hours later her body is found.
Annie Chapman: was residing across the street & around the corner at 35 Dorsett Street for her last few weeks. She actually turned up at 35 Dorsett the last day of her life and was turned away from the house for no doss money a few hours
before her body was found.
Elizabeth Stride: was residing at 32 Flower & Dean the last few days of her life. Her boyfriend, Michael Kidney, with whom she was partially estranged from the last week of her life, took up residence at 33 Dorsett Street. She too was turned
away from the the Lodging house for no doss money a few hours before her body was found.
Kate Eddowes: was residing at 55 Flower & Dean since 1881, and possibly infrequently at the makeshift shed at 30 Dorsett Street. She too was turned away from the house for no doss money a few hours before her body was found.
Mary Jane Kelly: was residing at 26 Dorsett Street. As we all know, her last horrid moments were spent in her room at 13 Miller's Court.
Thus, we have all five victims, living, and being seen the last day of their lives, at residences within approximately 100 yards of each other. The double eventees, Liz & Kate, were literally neighbors (32 & 55 Flower & Dean). And Mary Ann Nichols & Kate definitely were (55 & 56 Flower & Dean) unless those units were on opposite sides of the building or opposite sides of the street.
In any case, all Jack's victims were all from a select few doss houses.
Does anyone know how many different houses does this involve? Are 26, 30, 33, and 35 Dorsett all one building?
Is 32, 55, and 56 Flower & Dean all one building?
Regards,
JDK |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 02:49 pm | | Jack,
Your observations probably originate with S Knight's book The Final Solution & I ask to extend your question to Why would these fairly stable women abandon their normal digs shortly before their deaths?
Sorry I can't answer your questions.
Cheeers John |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 04:12 pm | | Hi John,
No, I have not had the pleasure of reading Stephen Knights book yet, but plan to.
I am just rediscovering some intriguing stats that many have identified long ago.
I am intrigued, at the moment, that the five victims may all have lived in only two or three housing complexes. I wonder what the odds are, that out of all the possible women who were habitating in a semi-transient manner in the Spitalfields & WhiteChapel area, and out of all the possible doss/temporary housing buildings that existed at the time, that JTR's five victims happened to be residing, at the times of their deaths,in only two building complexes.
To address your question, it is my non-expert notion that the womens' lives were spiraling downwards into an ever-increasing life of poverty and temporary living quarters. Some of them had recent break ups with their significant others, who were helping them to maintain a more stable standard of living, and they were, or began to, live a hand-to-mouth existence.
Regards,
JDK |
Author: John Dixon
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 01:28 pm | | Knight highlights how all the victims but Kelly had left their normal abode about a week before they were killed. Nichols & Chapman returned the night they were killed. Eddowes also returned a day or 2 before her death. As though the murderer was watching their homes. Stride had left ( run away ) & Kelly may have stashed the 30 shillings rent. So they had taken steps to change their lives. If you look at their lives before that point they all had "regular" digs, most of more than 12 months standing. Altogether different from the popular image.
Cheers John |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 02:12 pm | | John,
I'm looking forward to reading Knight's observations in his book. I'm trying to finish up Sudgen's Complete History and Martin's, et al's A-Z.
Eddowes was working on getting doss money her last day, and of course wound up in jail that night and was let out about an hour before her body was found. I still am a bit intrigued that she gave the police her name as Mary Ann Kelly. But, of course it is a very common name (guess it's better than using Jane Doe or Jane Q. Public; eh?)
In any regard, I agree with you that a distinct possibility is that JTR was watching their housing buildings.
Also, the physical likeness of Mary Ann, Annie, Liz, and Kate is noteworthy. All about 5'0, brown hair, brownish eyes, chubby, mid-40s, etc. It makes me think that Jack may have focused on a specific type of victim from a specific house location.
I don't know if these simalarities can lead to any enlightenment as to the identity of JTR, but I am taking notes.
Cheerio,
JDK |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 02:57 pm | | | It's possible that the four victims mentioned above resembled the killer's mother. |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 04:13 pm | | Thanks Scott,
I know this is a long shot but, does anyone out there have any information on what Kosminsky's, Cohen's, or Barnett's mothers looked like?
JDK |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 05:47 pm | | Jack D. Killian wrote:
Also, the physical likeness of Mary Ann, Annie, Liz, and Kate is noteworthy. All about 5'0, brown hair, brownish eyes, chubby, mid-40s, etc.
What, Jack? There is some resemblance between Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, and Annie Chapman in terms of chubbiness, but Elizabeth Stride and Katherine Eddowes were slender, and although granted of a similar age strata to the earlier victims, they presented a different aspect because they lacked their plumpness of their predecessors. Also, Liz Stride was around 5 foot six inches tall, not the five feet that you say, tall when you consider that most men of the day stood around five foot six. She was not called "Long Liz" for nothing. 
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 04:05 am | | JACK, please--what are the sources for your above statement:
"Also, the physical likeness of Mary Ann, Annie, Liz, and Kate is noteworthy. All about 5'0, brown hair, brownish eyes, chubby, mid-40s, etc."
The police reports list Annie Chapman's eyes as BLUE, and Liz Stride's eyes as LIGHT GREY. Sugden describes Kate Eddowes' eyes as HAZEL ... which might mean green with brownish flecks, but I don't know his source. No known police report gives a detailed description of Kate. The only victim you mention who had brown or brownish eyes is Polly.
None of the 4 victims you named were described as plump in the police reports. From the photos, Annie Chapman looks plump, Polly might be, but Liz and Kate were definitely SLIM.
Sudgen says Kate's hair is dark auburn which means RED--again the police reports don't give us this detail. The other 3: Annie, Polly and Liz did have dark brown hair, although Polly's was mixed with a lot of grey.
Sudgen gives Kate's height as 5' 0". The police reports give Annie's height as 5' 0", but Liz's height as 5' 2" and Polly's as 5' 2" or 3".
Annie, Polly, Liz, and Kate were indeed in their mid-forties, but Liz looked much younger than her actual age according to her long-time boyfriend Michael Kidney.
Unless I've overlooked something major, the police reports don't bear out your common traits between the victims theory.
CHRIS, refresh my memory--what's the source for Liz Stride being 5' 6"?
Still learning,
Ashling |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 08:38 am | | Hi, Ash:
A to Z (3rd edition, p. 438) mentions that Elizabeth Stride's height was 5 foot 5 inches and that Jim Marsh has pointed out that the "Long Liz" referred not to her height but to her name "Stride" as expressed in Cockney parlance, so I appear to be incorrect about the nickname. Sugden (1995 paperback, p. 190) though gives her height as 5 foot 2 inches as you do. I may be mistaken when I said Liz was 5 foot 6 inches tall. Let me continue to check my sources.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 04:13 pm | | I appreciate it Chris. My A-Z is a 1991 paperback which I think is the first edition ... it doesn't mention Liz's height. Also, mine reads "Phillips also testified that all teeth from Stride's lower left jaw were missing." Was this corrected to upper front in your later version?
Thanks,
Ashling |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 08:12 pm | | Hi Ash:
My edition of A to Z reads identically to yours in terms of Dr. Phillips' testimony, that he said "all teeth from Stride's lower left jaw were missing." This corresponds with the inquest testimony as reported in The Times of October 4, 1888, where Dr. Phillips is reported to have said, "All the teeth on the left lower jaw were absent." See The Ultimate JtR, p. 158. Where did you see that it should have been "upper front jaw"?
All the best
Chris |
Author: John Dixon
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 05:27 am | | Jack,
Not withstanding the accurate info above I agree with you that the victims may have appeared very similar in the half light.
John |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 06:12 am | | CHRIS, I first read it in Sugden. It's also in the Ultimate JtR, p. 169, which quotes Detective-Inspector Edmund Reid's inquest testimony from the Times on Oct. 6:
"I raised an eyelid and found that her eyes were light grey; I parted her lips and found that she had lost her upper teeth in front."
Interesting enough Reid's testimony was given after Phillips was re-called and testified:
"After the last examination, in company with Dr. Blackwell and Dr. Brown, I went to the mortuary and examined more carefully the roof of the mouth. I could not find any injury to or absence of anything from the mouth."
Taking this statement literally would mean the missing teeth were suddenly restored.
It's always made sense to me that the missing teeth were from the front upper part of Stride's mouth. Missing jaw teeth would not be conspicious, but front uppers definitely were--enough to inspire Liz's lies about being kicked in the teeth by a fellow passenger frantic to escape drowning.
Elizabeth Tanner's inquest testimony:
"I recognize the features, and by the fact that she had lost the roof of her mouth. She told me that happened when the Princess Alice went down."
Two other victims had missing jaw teeth--Chapman and Nichols.
Inspector Chandler's report on Chapman lists:
" ... two teeth deficient in lower jaw."
Dr. Phillips testified on Chapman:
"The front teeth were perfect, so far as the first molar, top and bottom, and very fine teeth they were."
Inspector Spradlin's report on Nichols lists:
"... one tooth deficient front of upper jaw, two on left of low[er] do ..."
Dr. Llewellyn's testimony in the Times doesn't mention Nichols' teeth.
Now I shall have to comb through all of Dr. Phillips' various testimonies to see if any other discrepancies exist. At the moment I find it a distinct possibility that Dr. Phillips confused Stride's teeth with an earlier victim's teeth.
DIANA, earlier you brought up the possibility of Stride having a hare lip. I apologize for stating that you were mistaken about which teeth Stride was missing. We were both "right," just quoting dif experts.
Regards,
Ashling |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 08:12 pm | | Hi, Ash:
Thank you for your detailed message. It would appear that you may be right, that Dr. Phillips was confused. In fact, it would appear from Connell and Evans's The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper: Edmund Reid and the Police Perspective, p. 40, which quotes Inspector Reid's notes made on attending the murder scene, that the inspector's inquest testimony is taken directly (and not surprisingly) from his notes. The wording of Reid's notes is exactly the same as you have given it as quoted from the testimony as printed in The Times of October 6, i.e.:
"I raised an eyelid and found that her eyes were light grey; I parted her lips and found that she had lost her upper teeth in front."
The explanation that you gave, that Liz relied on the story of being kicked in the teeth during the Princess Alice disaster to explain her missing teeth also would seem to give credence to the notion that it was front upper teeth not lower teeth that were missing. I think you may be right that Phillips was confusing Liz's case with one of the earlier cases.
In regard to Liz's Princess Alice story, I believe that many of these women told such stories to make their lives seem more romantic, to cover up the sordid details, e.g., in Liz's case, that she possibly lost the teeth in a fight with a punter or a boyfriend or husband.
Some conception of the lives of these women and life in the East End generally may be gained from the following.
In his memoirs, Doctor in the Nineties, D. G. Halsted (1865-1960) described the brutal environment observed daily by the medical staff of the London Hospital, Whitechapel:
"The East End in those days was a pretty frightening place. . . . Drink was cheap, and all too many people acted on the old saying: 'Two pennyworth of gin is the best way out of Whitechapel.' Down by the docks were opium dens and other noisome haunts of vice laid on for the benefit--or, rather, the depravation--of sailors and dockhands of all nationalities. We used to get the backwash of this seething tide of humanity in the Receiving Room at the London Hospital. Every so often we would get. . . a blousy, corpulent prostitute, her hair and clothes matted with streams of blood after she had come off worst in a duel with a colleague, using broken gin bottles; or a barely animate stevedore, whose body had been crushed to pulp by the fall of some heavy cargo down at the docks. (Doctor in the Nineties, p. 24).
A biography of Wilfred Grenfell (1865-1940), the medical missionary, who was a colleague of Halsted's at the London Hospital, adds further details on the horrors seen by the staff:
"Assisting the doctors in the large, bare, stone-coloured Receiving Room. . . [the medical staff] saw a procession of miserable creatures, their faces gouged and cut by broken bottles thrust at them in some drunken fight, women who had been ill-treated by drink-maddened husbands or lovers, inhuman creatures who had been women, until drink degraded them, moaning and sobbing, or cursing vilely while doctors tried to sew back the scalps that had been torn away in a fight with rivals for some sailor's favours. . . ." (J. Lennox Kerr, Wilfred Grenfell: His Life and Work, p. 17)
Hope the above is of interest.
All the best
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
