|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Did The Victims Know One Another?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Did The Victims Know One Another?
Author: A.M.P.
Sunday, 29 November 1998 - 07:08 am |        | Christopher-Michael raised a very interesting point on the ‘Questions and Answers’ board when he asked whether or not the Ripper victims knew one another. The question is a long standing one in Ripperology, with different writers taking opposing stands on the matter. As such, I thought it was worth opening this area up as a topic in its own right and I’ll endeavour to throw in my half crown first!
Authors like Stephen Knight probably concluded that the victims did know each other because of the similarities in their addresses. A glance at the addresses of the ‘canonical five’ plus others such as Annie Millwood, Emma Smith and Frances Coles shows that they all lived within the same small area. Time and again we see the names Dorset Street, Flower & Dean Street and Thrawl Street listed with others like White’s Row, Fashion St. and George Street being thrown in too. However we should not be surprised by this. These places constituted the ‘Wicked Quarter Mile’ and contained the highest concentration of the common lodging houses in which Jack’s victims lived. Furthermore the district was horrendously crowded. I have seen estimates that on nights of inclement weather up to 1,200 people could be crammed into Dorset Street. That road is only about 100 metres long. Combined with the fact that the population of the doss houses was transient, (as examples, see how many of the victims changed their lodging houses; moved to lodgings in other parts of the East End and beyond for a spell; spent time in the workhouses or went away hop picking) and we can see that the chances that the victims knew one another are all reduced. Doss house residents were not neighbours in the sense that people living in streets of normal rented houses were. What might be useful here (haven’t tried it - another project when time allows!) is to compile a list of all the victim’s addresses within this locality by date. That way we might get some measure of the chances of their knowing one another by seeing overlapping tenure at the same houses.
Another fruitful area would be to discover the ‘beats’ which the victims worked. There has been a lot of debate on the Victims Board lately, (under Liz Stride) about whether the women had ‘offices’. If we could establish that certain victims solicited in the same areas it might again offer pointers as to whether they knew each other. At present I cannot see a strong pattern, though there are possibilities. If Stride was working on the night she was killed then she was doing so in the area either side of the Commercial Road. Martin Fido in his book believes strongly that Stride was working that night and I agree with him. A comparison of the witness statements suggests that she was indeed seen with several different men (assuming of course that all these witnesses identified Stride correctly). Dutfield’s Yard could have been her ‘office’ as is speculated elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Donald Rumbelow (page 90) states that “Kelly was desperately short of money and went back to soliciting in the Aldgate and Leman Street areas”. His comment is derived from the statements of Maria Harvey (who provided the reference to Leman Street) and John McCarthy (Aldgate). The entry for Mrs. Harvey in the ‘A-Z’ suggests that both these witnesses were referring to the same beat. Since Leman Street runs south-east from Aldgate East Station, (where Commercial Street joins the Whitechapel Road) it could be said to be S.E. Aldgate. What’s interesting is that Berner Street runs north-south roughly parallel to Leman Street and only 200-300 yards away to the east. At its southern end Leman St. joins Cable Street. Backchurch Lane (immediately parallel to Berner Street) also joins Cable Street not much more than fifty yards away. None of this proves any link, but the point is that Kelly’s Leman Street beat was not so very far from Stride’s patch.
(Continued below…) |
Author: A.M.P.
Sunday, 29 November 1998 - 07:11 am | | (Continued from above…)
On its western fringes Aldgate joins with the City. Major Henry Smith claimed that “The beat of Catherine Eddowes was a small one… She was known to a good many constables”. Now Smith was head of the City Of London Police, who operated in a small area. If we can rely on his statement and make the reasonable assumption that he was talking about his own Force, then it suggests that Eddowes operated on the boundary between the East End and the City. The fact that she was arrested there in Houndsditch, and that on her release from the prison cells she appears to have taken the same route back to Mitre Square (rather than the shortest way back to Spitalfields) all adds up to this having been her beat. Assuming that Kelly’s beat in Aldgate was at the south eastern (Leman Street) part, there would have been no overlap here. On the other hand if Kelly’s Aldgate beat is not the same as her Leman St. patch then there might have been. (Confused? You ought to be!). Have any of you experts (Paul, Stewart, Yaz, C-M etc.) studied the victim’s beats? Surely there is a rich seam to mine here.
Finally we might get some more pointers from the pubs the women used. A study of these demonstrates to my mind the firmest evidence available that at least two of the victims knew one another. These are Kelly and Chapman. Both used The Britannia at 87 Commercial Street (on the corner with Dorset Street) as their number one pub. It is less certain but probable that they also used The Ten Bells at 84 Commercial Street. However, taking Kelly as our focus point, (purely owing to the question of her overlapping beats above), I can establish no links to either to these pubs for either Eddowes or Stride. The latter seems to have preferred the Queen’s Head at 74 Commercial Street.
Sorry this message is so long. Thanks for bearing with it. I’ll take a back seat at this point and let others take up the issue. Regards. |
Author: Anthony Green
Tuesday, 19 December 2000 - 04:58 pm | | In The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, Philip Sugden writes (1995 pbk ed. p. 232) of the investigation into the murder of Catharine Eddowes that "An examination of the body and its effects yielded possible leads [to the victim´s identity]. ... there was the mustard tin picked up by Sergeant Jones from beside the body. It contained two pawntickets. One was for a man´s flannel shirt, pledged in the name of Emily Burrell [an acquaintance of Catharine Eddowes], 52 White´s Road, on 31 August for 9d. The other was for a pair of men´s boots, pledged in the name of Jane Kelly, 6 Dorset Street, on 28 September for 2s. 6d. Both items had been pledged at the shop of Joseph Jones, 31 Church Street, Spitalfields. When the police tried to trace these women they discovered that the addresses given were fictitious. In White´s Row, Spitalfields, there was no No. 52. And at 6 Dorset Street no one by the name of Jane Kelly was known to the occupants".
Catharine Eddowes used the surname Kelly because she was living with one John Kelly; on being discharged from Bishopsgate Street Police Station she gave the name Mary Ann Kelly. I´ve read somewhere (I cannot at the moment rediscover the reference) that this was the name of John Kelly´s lawful wife. Perhaps "Jane Kelly" was also a name borrowed from a reative of John Kelly.
Be that as it may, Jane Kelly (also) happens to be reminiscent of Mary Jane Kelly, and the address given for Jane Kelly of 6 Drset Street also recalls 26 Dorset Street, the home of Mary Jane Kelly. Could Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street therefore be a garbled version of Mary Jane Kelly of 26 Dorset Street? If the police had looked there they would have found a (Mary) Jane Kelly.
Were this idea to be the case, it would suggest that Catharine Eddowes knew, or at least knew of, MJK and where she lived. Could there even be some family connexion between MJK and Catharine Eddowes´ boyfriend John Kelly?
Tony |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 05:18 pm | | | Could John Kelly who was living with Catherine Eddowes at the time of her death possibly have been Mary Ann Kelly’s brother? Could this explain how or why Kate Eddowes gave her name as Mary Ann Kelly at one point? Did she know her unfortunate “sister-in-law” & was Mary Ann Kelly part of the means by which Kate Eddowes first indulged in “casual” prostitution? This sounds far-fetched but Kate Eddowes’ reference to herself as Mary Ann Kelly has always bothered me, & in light of reports that Mary Ann Kelly had a brother John, this seems almost too coincidental. At the same time I find it hard to believe that if this connection existed, it escaped authorities in 1888. Any thoughts on this “theory” would be appreciated. |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 22 January 2001 - 08:30 am | | Hi Colleen:
1. As your much appreciated census work has shown--Kelly was and is a very common name, like Smith or Jones in America.
2. It's my understanding that the name of John Kelly's former wife (deceased? divorced?) was Mary Ann Kelly. As you know, prostitutes often used an alias when arrested. Catherine was knee-walking drunk when put in jail the night before she died ... She may of thought it quite funny to use the name of her common-law husband's legal wife. Or it might have seemed the easiest and wisest choice to use the name of a dead person ... if the real Mary Ann was indeed deceased.
3. Joe Barnett, Mary's friends, her drinking buddies, and her landlord would all have to be in dark about Mary:
a. Having a brother living in London.
b. Attending a funeral that half of London showed up for.
OR:
4. Joe Barnett and/or John Kelly failed to mention to the police that Mary's sister-in-law had been murdered.
They may have been afraid of being implicated in two murders--but the police wouldn't have thought both of them was the Ripper ... odds are one of them would have spoken up about the relationship between John and Mary.
Joe could have cut his 4 hour police interrogation short if he'd said--Hey, talk to John Kelly, first his common-law wife was murdered and now his sister--he's your best suspect.
5. Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly were both addicts that ran out of ways to feed their cravings--and turned to prostitution as a means of getting the money to drink with. Neither of them needed prompting by others.
Catherine robbed her employer when she was around 9 or 10 years old, was living with a common-law husband before she turned 16, and by the time she left Conway in her late 30s she had been "drinking excessively" for years--to use her sister's words.
Catherine was therefore a bit more capable of leading a 16 or 18 year old (in 1881) Mary Kelly astray--than the other way around. But, as I said, I doubt any arm-twisting was necessary. The pressure to buy booze by any means came from inside each of them. Just my two pence.
For all these reasons, I find your theory a non-starter. But I can hardly fault you for thinking along these lines. Such a connection between John and Mary would sure make a short-cut through the scads of Mary Kellys on the census!
Thanks again for keeping us updated on your research.
Ashling |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Monday, 22 January 2001 - 11:23 pm | | Ashling,
Thanks for your message, yes, I hardly think Eddowes' John Kelly was Mary Kelly's brother either, I just threw it out there as a possibility.....I would like, however, for someone to come up with Eddowes' John Kelly's real marriage to this putative Mary Ann & her death date.... |
Author: Anthony Green
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 09:03 am | | Dear Colleen and Ashling,
Thank you for your thought-provoking messages.
I would take seriously the possibility of a familial relationship, or at least a close acquaintance, between Catharine Eddowes and Mary Kelly, for the following reasons:
1) Eddowes not only used the names "Mary Ann Kelly" and "Jane Kelly", but under the latter name gave an address which seems to be a garbled version of Mary Jane Kelly´s actual address.
2) Although the name Kelly poses a genealogical problem because of its common use, how common was the name Fisher? The victim of Miller´s Court was named in a press report as "Lizzie Fisher". Elizabeth Fisher was Catharine Eddowes´ sister. How many co-incidences can there be? ("L.E. Fisher" was also the name taped into the clothing of the Thames murder victim Elizabeth Jackson.)
3) Although it might seem improbable that a familial relationship between two Ripper victims would not have emerged back in 1888, it is possible that there was an attempt to conceal Mary Kelly´s family connexions (perhaps because of fear related to the real or supposed motive of the killer?). At least none of her family attended her inquest or funeral. (Andy and Sue Parlour in Keith Skinner´s The Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Murders [1997], p. 71, refer to a Mary Jane Kelly born in Limerick in 1864 to a John Kelly and Ann McCarthy, and suggest that Mary Jane´s landlord John McCarthy may thus have been related to her, perhaps her uncle, given also connexions of both McCarthy and Mary Kelly with Dieppe and the fact that the next recorded occupant of 13 Miller´s Court was also called Kelly [p. 72]).
I´d be very interested to have your reactions and further thoughts.
Thanks again,
Tony |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 11:09 pm | | Tony,
Thank you for the interesting posting. I have searched the IGI before for Mary Kellys born in both Wales & Ireland & found the one you cite as being mentioned in Skinner's book.
"Mary Kelly, daughter of John & Anne (McCarthy) Kelly, christened April 19, 1864 in Castletown District, Co. Limerick, Ireland"
I'm interested in why these people would decide this precise Mary Kelly is THE Mary Kelly--I hope the decision isn't based solely on the McCarthy coincidence. There were several Mary Kellys born in Co. Limerick, Ireland circa 1864, & many of them had fathers named John.
I'm also interested in the Mary Kelly I found in Wales:
"Mary Kelly, daughter of John & Hannah Kelly, christened January 18, 1863 in Gelligaer, Glamorgan, Wales"
Gelligaer is very close to Cardiff.
Having learned that Eddowes' boyfriend's dead wife's name was Mary Ann, it now makes more sense to me that Eddowes would have used the name Mary Ann Kelly occasionally. As unsavoury as it may strike us, she was posing as his dead wife for those times when she wanted to avoid identifying herself. This makes much more sense than thinking the name was just a coincidence.
I did not know that 13 Miller's Court was occupied by another Kelly right after Mary Kelly's death, & this is indeed interesting. However, it must be said that McCarthy is also a very common Irish surname, & Fisher is also fairly common.
Generally I try to avoid conspiracy theories but I do feel that there are only so many coincidences that are believable until you start to think something else must have been going on. Also, the apparent absence of any of Mary Kelly's relatives continues to puzzle & irk me.
Anyway keep posting any new developments or thoughts you have! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 10:35 am | | Hi All,
Could I just point out that Keith Skinner only wrote the Foreword for Andy and Sue Parlour's book: The Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Murders [1997], referred to in Anthony Green's post of February 11th 2001.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Anthony Green
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 10:12 am | | Dear Caz,
Just to thank you for your posting pointing out the error in my reference to the Parlour´s book. I should have cited the author as Kevin O´Donnell.
Tony |
Author: Anthony Green
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 10:28 am | | Dear Colleen,
Many thanks for your very interesting posting. According to the Parlour´s book which I cited (or, rather, miscited) "Irish records reveal that there was only one Mary Jane Kelly born in the Limerick area around the time of the fifth victim´s birth" (pp. 70f.). I was very interested in your comment, therefore, that there were several Mary Kellys born in Co. Limerick ca. 1864. Are any of the others Mary Jane Kelly?
For the benefit of an ignorant newcomer to this area of research, could I also ask you if you would be kind enough to tell me what is the IGI and how does one search it?
With thanks,
Tony |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 11:46 am | | Tony,
Thanks for the message. The quote from Parlour's book is an outright lie, since there are MANY Mary Kellys christened in Co. Limerick circa 1864. I don't know what they term the "Limerick area" since no one knows if Mary Jane Kelly was supposedly born in the town of Limerick or the county at large. Also, the Mary Kelly Parlour's book singles out was NOT christened as Mary JANE Kelly, just as Mary Kelly. When I have time I will post here a list of all the Mary Kellys (Janes or Anne's or otherwise) christened in Co. Limerick around 1864.
The IGI (or International Genealogical Index) is an ongoing online index of christenings, marriages & burials from the UK, being collected by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (the Mormons). It is an indispensable source for vital statistics up to about 1840, after which it is less comprehensive, but still useful. So if there are that many Mary Kellys to be found in it from the right area & right time-frame, there must have been in reality many, many more--the IGI is far from complete for dates as recent as the 1860s.
Thanks again! |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 01:24 pm | | Colleen - 'Lie' is a strong word, connoting deliberate disinformation. 'Whopping error', perhaps?
Martin Fido |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 05:18 pm | | Yes, "lie" is a strong word, but I can't understand how someone could make such a "whopping error". The fact Parlour's book apparently tries to make people believe one certain Mary Kelly is THE Mary Kelly leads me to believe that the entire book was written in such a manner as to support his slim "theory" that the Mary Kelly in question MUST be THE Mary Kelly simply because her mother's maiden name was McCarthy & Mary Kelly's landlord at Miller's Court was McCarthy. In order to make this coincidence seem like a credible premise, the book had to have its readers believe that this Mary Kelly is the only possible candidate for THE Mary Kelly. Stating that one out of dozens of Mary Kellys born in Limerick had a mother surnamed McCarthy would have made little impression at all.
For the record, here are some (but not nearly all) of the Mary Kellys christened in Co. Limerick in the relevant time period:
May 11, 1863--Mary Kelly, daughter of Michael & Mary (O'Shaugnessy) Kelly, christened at Askeaton, Co. Limerick
February 25, 1864--Mary Kelly, daughter of Michael & Honora (Flaherty) Kelly, christened in Limerick town, Co. Limerick
April 19, 1864--Mary Kelly, daughter of John & Anne (McCarthy) Kelly, christened in Castletown District, Co. Limerick
May 31, 1864--Mary Kelly, daughter of Patrick & Mary (Connor) Kelly, christened at St. Michael's, Limerick town, Co. Limerick
November 27, 1864--Mary Kelly, daughter of Thomas & Honora (Magrath) Kelly, christened in Kilfinnane, Co. Limerick
August 16, 1865--Mary Kelley, daughter of John Kelley & Mary Collins, christened in Castletown District, Co. Limerick
August 31, 1865--Mary Kate Kelly, daughter of John & Bridget (Flynn) Kelly, christened at St. Michael's, Limerick town, Co. Limerick
November 13, 1865--Mary Kelly, daughter of John Kelly & Mary O'Donnell, christened in Galbally, Co. Limerick
February 14, 1866--Mary Kelly, daughter of John & Margaret (Cumins) Kelly, christened in Adare, Co. Limerick
April 24, 1866--Mary Kelly, daughter of John & Ellen (Collins) Kelly, christened at St. Michael's, Limerick town, Co. Limerick
September 5, 1866--Mary Kelly, daughter of John & Bridget (Goulding) Kelly, christened at St. Michael's, Limerick town, Co. Limerick
December 17, 1866--Mary Kiely, daughter of John & Honoria (Cagney) Kiely, christened in Adare, Co. Limerick
Depending on what precise timespan you concentrate on (since we don't know the actual year of Mary Kelly's birth) there are even more Mary Kellys to choose from. Note that there is not one Mary Jane or Mary Ann in the above list. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 09:10 pm | | I have just noticed something interesting. Having finally received my copy of Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer, & in the process of reading it, I note that it states Annie Chapman was living at "Crossingham's Lodging House at 35 Dorset Street" at the time of her death. As I discovered in the 1881 census & noted in a recent posting under "Locating the Victims on the 1881 Census", in 1881 nos. 16-19 Dorset Street encompassed a lodging house run by a William & Mary Crossingham. In 1881 the lodging house was home to 164 men, one of them Henry Turner, Martha Tabram's companion after her marriage disintegrated.
This coincidence leads me to think it's the same Crossinghams being referred to if not the same lodging house. Would the change in address from 16-19 Dorset Street (1881) to 35 Dorset Street (1888) actually mean the establishment had moved down the street, or that the street itself was renumbered? I remember reading somewhere that the modern system of street numbering was very fluid & haphazard until after WWII, particularly in the UK where houses might be numbered up one side & down the other rather than back & forth across the street as we do now.
Does anyone have any thoughts about this? |
Author: Carl Dodd
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 01:26 am | | | One of the tricks that modern prostitutes use, when they're in trouble, is to claim to be another prostitute. It is very possible that, even if none of the victims had ever met, one or more of them might have been using one of the other victims' name for some reason. If Jane Smith knows Jane Jones, by name, face or reputation, then Jane Smith may claim to be Jane Jones when officers go to arrest her. This activity has been occuring for many years. I'd bet that it was also done in 1888 London. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 29 June 2001 - 07:05 am | | | Absolutly Carl, so many people were known by so many different names for various reasons in those days. |
Author: stephen borsbey
Sunday, 01 July 2001 - 04:28 am | | absolutely i do it when the the rent man
calls, or anyone who i owe money to.
we have a chinese rentman he is known as
SHINTIN. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 12:16 pm | | | Is it true that prostitutes had their own territory which was fiercely protected?If that is true then newcomers or part timers would have a difficult time encroaching on someone's staked out territory.These women would know one another enough to stay away from their area.Jack seemed to know enough about them to select certain ones from each area that concerned him. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 06:26 pm | | | I imagine that so far as the victims were concerned they were flotsam and jetsom to Jack.They were probably better off dead in his mind, and as Scrooge said their deaths decreased the surplus population.Mary Kelly was something else.He would emote in killing her. He made a statement in that murder---Revenge? . If Ivor is correct this murder ended his blood lust. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 07:45 am | | Hi David,
I went on Don Rumbelow's Ripper walk recently and asked him if he thought the killer would have known the coppers' beat times. He said it wasn't necessary because his prostitute victims would have done - implying that they did have their own territory, in as much as they used a familiar haunt for their business with Jack.
So did Jack use his victims' knowledge of the area against them and for his own protection? And how would that square with choosing locations for himself on a map first?
Love,
Caz |
Author: david rhea
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 08:38 am | | | Suppose the location was selected before the victim was chosen?That each victim was selected to fit the location.As Ivor says in his presentation-from due North-due South-due East due West.Only Mary Kelly's murder was placed as the final atrocity and defilement of two basic Chritian symbols-The Vesica Pisces and the cross.I read that this same tyoe of selective process was used by the Zodiac killer. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 08:41 pm | | | I do know Donald as a friend and when I went on his walk he stated that Kelly was butchered with an axe.The News of the World in 1888 believed the killer knew the police beat times in fact I placed their article on the casebook some weeks ago.As for the question, "Did the victims know each other?". Prostitutes have their own patches and they dont poach onto another girls patch.So they have to know the opposition for such reasons.All professional people in an area know each other and prostitution is the oldest profession of all is it not.Also When I was in the West End with a couple of mates many years ago some guy came running from a building with a prostitute in hot pursuit and she was calling him all the names under the sun.By the time he had run 100yds other prostitutes were coming out of doorways and elsewhere. A crowd of prostitutes numbering about 15 were hot on his heels. Some were grabbing milk bottles and throwing them at the guy as they chased him out of sight. It turned out that the guy had tried to rip a prostitute off and had done a runner.It was then that the hue and cry went up.It transpired that the girls all knew each other and they had stuck together. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 09:27 pm | | | Not only would most of the prostitutes have known each other, or know of each other but all of the villians in the area would have known each other, or would have known of each other.Spitalfields is not a large area neither for that matter is Whitechapel. I have known most of the villians in a large provincial town which was far larger than Algate,Whitechapel and Spitalfields put together.And it had more people living in it.Also I knew many criminals from various locations in London and elsewhere. Checking out the victim's addresses which were so near to each other I would have to say that the chances that they knew each other were far greater than the chances that they did not know each other.How well they knew each other is quite another matter. |
Author: Vaughan Allen
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 05:47 am | | Hi Ivor,
but surely we're talking of a far larger number of prostitutes than inhabit the 'walk-ups' of Soho?
There is also the added problem that the victims concerned were, with a couple of exceptions, not regular prostitutes, and thus would rank with a high %age of a very high population (and there's no evidence that Kathy Eddowes (RIP) was a prostitute at all). They would not be likely to have 'pitches' if they were irregular, just picking up men on a casual basis in the pubs of the area.
So the scenario you describe possibly might not apply?
Vaughan |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 01:23 pm | | That being the case Vaughan, Nichols,Chapman,and EDDOWES, (as you have stated) were not "real" prostitutes. They were easy women, and they had to be easy to live. Possibly Stride came into this category, but she was still fit and attractive, so maybe she was a pro by choice, Kelly was a prostitute by choice I'd say, so was Tabram, but Tabram's sell by date was fast approaching, judging by her photo. I've never believed that Nichols Chapman and Eddowes were street fighting women, their health says they were not, Nichols was an alcoholic, she was very drunk the morning she was killed, she would not have lasted much longer. Chapman was terminally ill the morning she was killed, Eddowes was quite ill supposedly with kidney disease,she would not have been around for much longer,--- and her stomach was completely empty when her body was found,-- seems even the police could not spare her a crust before releasing her. They were all small women, a pushover for the Ripper.I don't think the Ripper needed any assistance, but for anyone who thinks so, --especially in the murder of Kelly, why not think about Daniel Barnett?
Rick |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 04:04 pm | | | Hi Vaughan,Sir Charles Warren said that the victims came from a small group who frequent the area at NIGHT.So thus they were not taken from the 1200 prostitutes who in the main worked day and evenings but from a lesser number who worked at night. Thus increasing the chances that they knew each other.They walked their patches after the pubs were shut.Jack did not pick up his victims from a pub.Surely the pubs were closed when the victims were murdered. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 09:04 pm | | | Hi Rick,I have some good news and some bad news for you. The bad news is that you can forget about Barnett killing Kelly.He was with me from midnight until midday on the morning of the murder.And for the record I am quite prepared to make a police statement to that effect. The good news is that I have gone 3 weeks without a smoke Rick and have lost nearly a stone in weight over 28 days on my diet. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 01:00 am | | Hello Rick,
there is certainly much truth in what you say regarding the physical conditions of the Ripper's victims.
Remember nevertheless that Chapman had a fight (a quiet violent one it seems by the marks left on her face and body) just some days before her death, showing that she still had some resources.
Remember also that on some of these women (I am sure about Chapman and Eddowes, I do not remember well about Nichols) bruises were found on the hands.
Bruises can't come after death.
These also tends to show that they could have been able to fight and thus that they were not so weak.
And last but not least, should we discard the effect, even on a feeble person, of the production of adrenaline by the body of a person put under stress because of danger of death ?
And, may I add that, whatever the weakness of the victims, whatever the strength of the killer, there are one mouth with which to shout or to bite, two hands with which to grasp and to scratch and two feet with which to kick and to crush for each victim with all of which the killer has to cope in the same time ?
A lot of things to care about for only one guy having only a few moments at disposal.
I mean, certainly one killer may kill one victim at a time.
But here we are speaking about victims that never left the scantest trace of fighting around them, quite the opposite.
As if they were impeded to use, during the assault, their mouth, their hands or their feet.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 03:09 pm | | Hello Graziano, I have a lot of respect for your views,-- and you,come to that, but I have to be faithful to my own theories. I'd go along with you up to a point, maybe Jack had help, but if he did,-- he was Joe Barnett helped by his brother Daniel, or maybe John?. Perhaps, (and I'll say this is all perhaps) the three brothers thought they and their name was being rubbished by Mary Kelly, sometime after Eddowes murder, but maybe the bad feelings between Barnett and Kelly had been going on for quite a bit longer,--- she had to go!! and if Joe was not the Ripper, What a good time to do it, and make it look like the Ripper's work!!. Of the victims, Gratzi, I honestly can't see them being any trouble to the Ripper, women are naturally that bit weaker than men, these women were ill, to my mind they were easy meat. Chapman did have a fight I agree, but I think she lost, she gives me the impression she was an inoffensive, knocked about,--(ill treated) woman. If the Ripper had attacked these women from behind,-- left arm round their chest, immobilizing their left arm, his left hand grabbing their right arm-- or sleeve, his right hand, (perhaps with a pad, perhaps not) clamped hard across their nose and mouth, then pushed up to, and hard against a brick wall, their head pressed tight into his shoulder,-- I think they would soon have been unconcious, silently, with not that much struggle.
All the Best, Rick. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 07:48 am | | Hi Graz, Rick, All,
In the darkness, would lone killer Jack be able to tell how weak or sick his chosen victims were?
True, he may have made a point of targeting only the ones who were obviously too feeble to give him any trouble. And we have precious few reports from stronger women, who walked away from being accosted by a man during the ripper scare because they were able to fight back with mouths, hands or feet.
But I think our Italian  may have the whip hand on this one, and Jack may have had a secret weapon for ensuring success.
What that weapon was, and whether it involved more than one assailant, I wouldn't know.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 08:37 am | | Caz,
I purchased a copy of "The ultimate Source book" yesterday... impressed eh? 
Anyway, I do not know if you have it, but it sort of starts with Emma Smiths attack in Osbourne St. It goes on through the police (and news) reports of that time and it includes an attack on Emmas pal in Decmber 1887.
Now my laboured point is that the police knew absolutely nowt about both attacks until poor Ms Smith had passed away 3 days later. So Why would that be ?
Well I reckon its because the ladies of the night in 1888 (as now) thought it pointless to report these assaults, there would be no outcome and only more hassle.
Also I would have thought that attacks on prostitues are a common thing and excepted as an 'occupational hazzard' so to speak.
Saying all this, an assault in the middle of a murder scare would have cause many alarm bells to ring.
Monty
 |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 09:34 am | | Hi Monty,
Yep, I've got a copy thanks. I'd be even more impressed if you hadn't had to pay for yours.
And yes, that was my point too. I think if any women had to fight off a would-be assailant, they'd be much more likely to come forward at the height of the scare than at any other time, before or afterwards. Although some may have been afraid of coming to police attention as working girls at any time, others might feel this was outweighed by a sisterly duty towards other potential victims, to offer a description and details of any suspicious incident.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 09:51 am | | Caz,
I didnt pay for it !!
Book tokens from former work buddies, does that count as paying for it?...
...I have never payed for it in my life !
Totally agreeable Monty
|
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 12:14 am | | | Hi Monty, I went out and bought a copy of the sourcebook today. It is one of the better books on the subject. In actual fact when my wife and I were up at the public records office some years ago selling my maps at the shop there and checking the files we talked to the manager.We came up with the idea of getting all the files and putting them into book form after I had finished my book. I did mention it to Melvin Harris. Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner got hold of the idea though and beat me to it. |
Author: Monty
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 07:29 am | | Ivor,
Swines !!
Monty
|
|
|
|
|
