|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through March 03, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Catherine Eddowes:
Catherine Eddowes (General Discussion):
Archive through March 03, 2001
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 05:11 pm |        | The problems about Mitre Square have not , I feel , been adequately resolved yet.
Firstly , having visited the site I should point out that it is a very small area indeed ,( although obviously it has changed since the last century I feel it would have been of a similar size then as it is now ). If PC Harvey had walked up Church passage at about 1.41 am , his lantern beam would not have failed to illuminate the area where Catherine's body was found IMHO.
At 1.30 am PC Watkins found Mitre Square empty. At 1.34 am Levy and Lawende saw a man and woman speaking in Church Passage , who were subsequently seen by witnesses in St James Place to enter the Square. At about 1.41 am , PC Harvey looks into the Square and sees and hears nothing. At 1.44am PC Watkins finds Kate's body.
Could this mean then that the body was not in place at 1.41 am , in which case where was it ? Had Eddowes even been killed at this point ? |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 07:04 pm | | Hi Simon,
I believe Rumbelow was the first to ponder this short time span between the body possibly being absent when Harvey came down Church Passage and when Watkins found it several minutes later. He suggested Eddowes was killed in one of the empty houses and dragged to the spot she was found. The police undoubtedly investigated this possibility and found no evidence for it. More recent speculation has it that Harvey's reckoning of the time he was at the bottom of the passage was off because he used the Aldgate Post Office clock to estimate the time. He passed it approximately 12 minutes previous. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 07:09 pm | | Simon
The square is approximately 75ft across, measured at the point of the end of Church Passage to opposite where the body was found. A police lantern would not have illuminated that distance. Even the street light at the end of Church Passage may not have been enough. The south-west corner was described as the darkest in the square, and we dont even know for sure if both the lamps in the square were working on the night in question.
We might even speculate that Jack was crouched over the body at the time PC Harvey walked down the passage, an erie thought, but from the location of the body you could see directly up Church Passage from across the square.
The area of illumination of a regulation police oil lamp was very small, only for immediate observation, estimate 10-20 ft at the most. And a small lantern will not penetrate the shadow created by a more powerfull street lamp.
I was in the square in '72, before it was changed, believe me, it was very dark, even then.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 02:55 pm | | Jon , I will bow to your better judgement since you actually saw the Square as it originally was and I have only seen the modern variant of it. But I think your estimation of length of the police oil lamp beam must err on the over cautious side ; remember PC Watkins found the body by shining his lantern from the entrance to Mitre Street , a distance of about 30 ft.
70ft sounds like a large distance , but in reality this is only about 25m and a person could run from one side to another in about 3-4 seconds.
Does anyone have more information about police oil lamps btw ? |
Author: Jon
Monday, 27 November 2000 - 06:46 pm | | Actually Simon, Stewart (our retired PC) might have some inside track to finding something like that out.
PC Watkins beat was to walk up Mitre Street in a northward direction, he turned into Mitre Square and in passing down the side of Mr Taylor's corner shop, turned right into the southern corner. This is when he noticed the body. Seeing as how the body was laid outside the rear of the second house, then the distance that Watkins had to view was something less than 25ft, possibly less than 20ft. "I turned to the right and saw the body" (Inquest statement)
However, you may be quite correct about the radius of visibility from one of those lamps. I was estimating based on something I read years ago.
The accuracy of the stated times in all of these crimes is crucial, but how accurate are they?
The Times reported that Watkins had a watch, he is the only PC involved in these murders that I'm aware of that is stated to have had a watch.
Regards, Jon |
Author: STEVE RATTEY
Sunday, 17 December 2000 - 09:20 pm | | I'm a first time user so this is aimed at anyone.
One point that has always interested me is the identity of the person living at 29 Aldgate High Street in 1888.When released from Bishopsgate Police Station it seems possible that this was the direction Kate Eddowes was heading for.
In the Mammoth Book of JTR I seem to remember some reference to it although the name was not revealed.
Maybe it was in this area that she spent those missing minutes before being seen at 01.35 hours.
If anyone has an idea on the subject I would be very interested.
Steve |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 17 December 2000 - 09:46 pm | | Steve
The last info we have on the address you refer to was posted, first by Adam, then in reply, by A.M.P.
I attach their poste's in sequence, so you follow the context......
------------------------------------
Kelly's Post Office Directory for 1888 doesn't list 29 Aldgate St, meaning it was a residential address and not a business.
Goad's Insurance Map, however, gives the following information:
27 William Smart, Chemist
28 William C Archer, Restaurant
29/30/31 William Smith & Co., Tailors - with Hotel over
32 Marcus David Loewenstark, Electroplater
So it would seem that Kelly's took the Hotel above 29 Aldgate as the main use for that address.
Unless Catharine Eddowes was returning to 29 Aldgate High St to have her shawl repaired(!), if A P Wolf is to be believed she would have been visiting someone in the the hotel. Who? Your guess is as good as mine.
Adam
----------------------------------------------
Adam,
With reference to your post of 17th August, I think that you are confusing Aldgate with Aldgate High Street. They were separate streets. The traders you quote were operating in Aldgate. However, PC Robinson’s arrest of Catherine Eddowes took place outside 29 Aldgate High Street.
Neither Kelly’s Directory nor the City Of London Directory yielded a name for the occupant of 29 Aldgate High Street upon consultation. The nearest numbers I could find to it were as follows:-
28 Henry Phillips, Furniture Warehouseman.
30 William Hattersley, Ironmonger
32 Abraham Lazarus Pozner, Tailor (strangely enough he also shared the premises at 27 Aldgate with Smart the chemist).
Best Wishes
A.M.P.
-------------------------------------------
Regards, Jon |
Author: STEVE RATTEY
Sunday, 17 December 2000 - 10:22 pm | | Adam and Jon
As I said earlier this is the first time I've used the message boards and I'm stunned at the speed of response. Thanks for your messages and I'm keen to see if anyone else has any ideas on the subject.
So if the floor above 29 was a hotel it would be very difficult to find out who was staying there.
Any thoughts on her impression on a fire engine really being a police vehicle. Maybe as a warning to the person she might have been trying to blackmail. Hence why she was so keen to get back to that area to discuss it further.
Thanks again,
Steve |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 18 December 2000 - 03:45 am | | Officially there was no number 29 Aldgate High Street. That’s probably why the identity of this building and its owner has caused so much consternation in the past.
A. P. Wolf in the 'Mammoth Book of JTR' once offered a teaser about it, saying that if anybody could identify it they’d have the Ripper, believing that Kate Eddowes was heading back to no. 29 when she was murdered. I wonder if he/she knew the truth about the street numbering and was just pulling our legs?
In the late 1860s numbers 28 and 29 were both used by a wine importer. In about 1870 he sold up and the properties were taken on by a Henry Phillips, furniture warehouseman. A year or two later his Kelly’s entry of 28-29 AHS becomes plain no. 28. The most likely explanation is that Phillips converted the two properties into one and only needed the one mailing address.
Presumably when PC Robinson arrested Eddowes he glanced at the adjacent buildings (still numbered), and simply assumed he was outside no. 29 - as would once have been the case, of course.
Regards, V. |
Author: STEVE RATTEY
Monday, 18 December 2000 - 02:44 pm | | Thanks Viper
Am I right therefore in thinking that back in those days the properties were not numbered- odds on one side and evens on the other side as they are today. A friend pointed brought this to my attention today but I'm not sure about it.
Does anyone know were A P Wolf got the information from?
I am, by the way, not sure about the statement made in that chapter suggesting that those interested in JTR hate getting out of the armchair and doing some research.
Thanks again,
Steve |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 18 December 2000 - 04:37 pm | | A fair question Steve, and one that has to be born in mind when piecing together the locality.
Your friend is correct in that many of the older streets were still numbered consecutively up one side and back down the other (such that the highest number was opposite the lowest). That was applicable to many that we encounter in the Ripper case, e.g.s Aldgate High Street, Whitechapel High Street, Dorset Street.
Others were numbered in the odd/even alternate fashion which we were more familiar with today, e.g.s Commercial Street, Hanbury Street, Berner Street.
There were quite a few oddities. Where properties had been subdivided it wasn't unusual to see a half number incorporated to an address. A few of these still exist in the area (such as in Sandys Row). Most confusing of all is when streets were renumbered from the older consective pattern to the odd/even pattern within the period we are studying. Suddenly the address of one building becomes something completely different! A good example of that occurred in Duke Street c1889.
Regards, V. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 18 December 2000 - 06:25 pm | | Don't you think you are inclined to be grasping at straws, thinking No29 Aldgate has any significance? Eddowes could have been picked up anywhere along that street. Because A.P.Wolf thinks No 29 might mean something, doesn't make it so. When Eddowes was arrested for being drunk and disorderly who was to know when she would be released? Even the police wouldn't know when she would be sober enough.Did the tenant of No 29 go to Bishopsgate p/station and enquire when she would be released? or did he hang around outside until she came out?. Or did she make it all the way from the station to No29, and he took her back to the Square and killed her?. None of those things I think. Eddowes was supposedly not a prostitute, but where and how did she get the money to get drunk between the time of leaving John Kelly and being arrested?. Why were the V's cut into her cheeks? Did it mean "M", or "W" or "55", that act must have some significance. Why were her eyelids cut?, he didn't do it to Tabram, Nichols or Chapman, in fact he seemed to avoid the victims eyeballs altogether. Then there are the carefully placed body parts with the Kelly murder, a breast, a kidney and the uterus under the head as a pillow must have had some meaning! Was there no blood at all on the floor at the left side of the bed, weren't there any footprints? I don't know how but maybe the secret of who JtR was lies in the way he played his "funny little games"
Rick |
Author: STEVE RATTEY
Monday, 18 December 2000 - 07:45 pm | | Thanks Rick
If this murder had taken place yesterday Police would not be considered to be clutching at straws in checking out any possible avenue in order to secure an arrest. Being some 112 years down the road, where does that leave us. I have never seen any harm in speculation of a lateral fashion. I'm sure Shakespear has a very succinct quote to encapsulate what I mean. Anyway thanks for your message.
To Viper
Thanks also for your message it's something that I had never really considered before. I guess I had always thought the numbering system we have now had always existed.
I'm a complete newcomer to these boards and I think it's a great source of information. Wish I had discovered them a long time ago.
Thanks to you both
Steve |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 20 December 2000 - 01:35 pm | | Steve,
"Yond Casius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous." - Shakespeare (Julius Caesar, Act I Scene 2)
J
Welcome to the Monkey House!
All,
Just a couple of quick comments and I'm off...
Again, I believe it is in no way true that being of a certain occupation will give one some greater capability to solve this case. If such were the case, then juries would be required to have these occupations. The jury, which we are, do certainly benefit from hearing the opinions of experts, but we still can render a verdict based upon the evidence presented without the benefit of having a degree in psychology or cryptozoology or whateverelseology.
A reading of the East London Advertiser dated 6 Oct. 1888 has brought to light a couple of things that I find quite intriguing (I think my buddy Rick will appreciate this too). I had previously stated that it is quite reasonable to sustain the belief that Anderson misremembered as did Smith in their recollections unless there testimony could be corroborated by some other sort of records; low and behold, I found such a record in regards to Smith's famous "5 minutes behind the killer... washed his hands up a close" statement.
"The murder in Mitre-square is similar in its brutality to that of Annie Chapman. The victim was an unfortunate woman, so poor that robbery could not possibly be suggested as a motive. The scene of the crime - Mitre-square, Aldgate - is an essentially business place during the day, but during the night it may be described as secluded. The arrangements of the City Police at this point - and, perhaps, owing to the late murders - are said to be very precise, and the circuit of the beat would not extend over 11 minutes. On this occasion the officer on duty was Police-constable Watkins. At half-past 1 o'clock Watkins handed a can of tea to the watchman at Messrs. Kearly and Tongue's, tea merchants, named George James Morris, a naval pensioner, telling him to make it hot in 10 minutes' time, when he would then be round again. Having made the circuit of the square, Watkins left, paraded his beat, and returned at a quarter to 2. On entering the square by Mitre-street, he observed, by the flickering light of the street lamp, something lying in the south-west corner, close to a hoarding, seven or eight feet high, running at the back of Messrs. Taylor and Co.'s, picture-frame makers, 8 and 9, Mitre-street. Getting closer to the object, he saw it was a woman, and at once shouted to the watchman to come over. The man immediately came, and, seeing how matters stood, without hesitation made his way to the main thoroughfare, freely blowing a constable's whistle on the route. In a few minutes a large number of police and others were on the spot, in addition to a constable named Pearce, a caretaker at a building about 25 yards from the scene of the crime. As the word passed along the line, officers from different routes came hurrying up; but, early intimation having been conveyed to Bishopsgate Police Station, Chief Superintendent Major Smith, Superintendent Foster, Inspector McWilliams, and Inspector Collard, immediately organised a "scouting" brigade, to detect and arrest any suspicious looking character. The efforts of the men, however, were unsuccessful."
The last 2 sentences making my point. Again, this doesn't prove Smith's statement, only that it adds more likelihood that it was true.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention one more paragraph in the article that caught my attention regarding coroner Wynne Baxter's theory about organ retrieval as a motive.
"The rumour, at most, appears, to have been an idle one, and in respect of the sum mentioned to the coroner - namely, £20, as the price offered, and the object of the American, as stated by him - the story is discredited. At the Middlesex Hospital the official who on other points refused to elucidate the matter; characterised the tale, as far as the above details are concerned, as a silly story. Furthermore, at University College, where pains were taken to return an unqualified answer of "no information," it was hinted that the story as it has been made public had in some way, become mixed with error, and that it was very certain that it provided no explanation of the motive of the crime."
Sigh. Round and round we go.
"And now another girl must die,
So Jack can have his kidney pie." - Kolchak: The Nightstalker (episode: The Ripper)
I am, as always, your very obedient (ha ha) servant,
Jack |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 08:59 am | | | ". . . close to a hoarding?" I would like to know what a hoarding is. Either I am ignorant or this is a term confined to the British Isles (always assuming that it has not subsequently passed out of usage.) Nichols was found near a fence. Chapman was found near a fence. Stride was found near a fence. I always thought that Eddowes broke the pattern and thus rendered it meaningless. |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 09:09 am | | AHA!!!!!!!!!!! Cambridge online dictionary says:
hoarding (FENCE) noun [C]
a temporary fence, usually made of boards, put around an area, esp. one where people are building
Now what is this about fences. Why always a fence? (Excluding Kelly of course). |
Author: Rebecca A Bonell
Monday, 08 January 2001 - 07:57 pm | | hi my names rebecca
can anyone tell me what colour catherine eddows hair and eyes were |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 10:02 pm | | Catherine Eddowes in 1881
(adapted from my posting "Locating the Ripper Victims on the 1881 Census")
In 1881 Kate Eddowes was living with Thomas Conway at 71 Lower George Street, Chelsea, London. She was listed as Kate Conway & they told the census-taker they were married. Thomas was a 46-year-old hawker, born in Ireland. Kate was a 38-year-old charwoman, born in Staffordshire. They had 2 sons with them: Thomas, 13, born Middlesex, & George, 7, born Middlesex; both were attending school.
The whereabouts of Kate's daughter Annie Conway are indeed a mystery. A search of the national index to the 1881 census turned up only 4 Ann/Anne/Annie Conways born in Middlesex, England (where Kate's other 2 children were listed as being born) between 1860 & 1870. The first of these was one Ann Conway, aged 19, unmarried, listed as daughter to widow Ellen Conway of Victoria Street, Rishton, Lancashire. Ann was also born in Richton, England, apparently a different place from Rishton, Lancashire where her younger sister was born & where the family was living. She gave her occupation as a cotton winder. The second was one Annie Conway, aged 16, living with her widowed mother Margaret Conway at 60 Alfred Road, Paddington, London. Annie was born in Paddington also. The third was one Annie Conway, aged 16, living with her parents Timothy & Mary Conway at 6 Charles Place, St. Pancras, London. Anne was born in St. Pancras & was a dressmaker. The fourth was one Annie Conway, aged 15, living at 11 Woodstock Road, Action, Middlesex, with her parents George H. & Florence Conway. She was born in London. None of these 4 candidates seems likely to have been the daughter of Thomas Conway & Catherine Eddowes. Annie Conway may have been married in 1881 or living as married & therefore under another, as yet unknown, surname. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 22 January 2001 - 08:37 pm | | Rebecca -
Eddowes was 5 foot tall with hazel eyes and auburn hair, according to the researches of Neal Shelden. |
Author: Kaan Toprak
Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 09:32 am | | Hi, i am new to the board and site and wrote an
E-mail to Stephen P. Ryder with a question.
He mentioned, that I could post it in the message board, since the subject could be discussed here.
OK, I´ll do so
Hi,
first of all: congratulations.
Casebook is a very interesting and informative site.
Reading the introduction, I found out, that half a liver was sent to the vigilance commitee in Whitechapel.
Do you know, if this kidney tissue still exists or do you know who may know about it?
If it is still preserved, then it may be
possible to receive DNA from the kidney and compare it with DNA from Eddowes bones.
I am a biochemist in the institute of legal medicine in Münster, Germany where we analyzed a 200 year old heart tissue from the french king Louis XVII last year and confirmed the origin.
I think the kidney analyzis should work similary and also DNA extraction from 100 year old bone may work.
I would be glad for some informations.
Best wishes
Kaan |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 10:39 am | | Welcome aboard Kaan! No one knows where the partial kidney sent to George Lusk ended up. Dr. Thomas Ind who joined our board about a year ago has made tremendous efforts to find it. Dr. Ind used to work at the London Hospital where the kidney was examined, but so far he's had no luck in tracing it.
Dr. Ind (who prefers to be called just Tom on these boards) has had computer problems lately and isn't posting regularly right now. You can probably e-mail him direct--by typing Ind into the search engine accessed on the left hand side of these message boards. That should give you his most recent e-mail address.
However, I doubt tracking down the kidney will solve the mystery of its origin. Generally speaking, the remains of kings and queens are better preserved than the bones of poverty stricken prostitutes. I'd be interested in knowing how y'all obtained a sample of Marie Antoinette hair to compare to the heart purported to be Louis XVII's. Was a locket of Marie's hair inside someone's locket? Or did you obtain the hair from Marie's coffin ... and was she buried in a lead lined coffin or in an above ground vault?
Unlike some of the other victims, Eddowes wasn't buried in a pauper's grave. But I've been told that her wooden (elm) coffin would be no protection against the corrosive qualities of London's damp soil. In other words, it is believed by many that absolutely nothing of her would remain to take DNA samples from. I'd greatly appreciate hearing your expert opinion on this.
Below is a link to a picture of Catherine Eddowes' grave. The marker was put down years after she died and the name is spelled wrong.
Hope this helps a bit.
Ashling
http://www.findagrave.com/pictures/1844.html |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 01:40 pm | | Hi, Kaan:
Welcome to the site. To follow up on the information that Ashling imparted to you, my understanding from Dr. Ind is that it is his thought that a slide of the tissue from the half a kidney might have been preserved at the London Hospital, rather than the entire half a kidney. The last time I was in contact with him about the matter, I understood that he had so far had no success in verifying that the slide still exists. Also, as Ash has told you, although the victims' graves are now marked the gravemakers were put there years later. Thus, it is questionable whether the correct remains can be located in order to make a DNA comparison to the tissue on the slide even if the slide could be found.
We apologize that we cannot be more positive in our responses to your query. We nevertheless thank you for your curiosity and your enthusiasm. It would be nice to think that modern forensic science could provide some answers in the case but at the present moment it is hard to see how it might be able to do so.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 05:02 pm | | Kaan,
Herzliche Wilkommen. Great idea and I will merely add here (to mimic Anderson) that it has always been my fantasy to compare the blood from the bloody thumb print on the Saucy Jacky postcard to the DNA from her bones. This would prove that the writer of that piece of correspondence was the murderer, or, if the result was negative, the "enterprising journalist" allegation would have greater weight. The problem is that the bloody postcard has gone missing (if memory serves) besides the fact that I don't know if the amount of blood on the card is a sufficient sample.
I am, sir, your humble servant,
Jack |
Author: Kaan Toprak
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 10:27 am | | Thanks you for all the answers.
I´ll try to answer some of your questions.
First of all: It is likely. that DNA is preserved in the Bones from the victim Eddowe.
There are two types of human DNA: nuclear DNA and mitochondrial(mt) DNA.
The nuclear DNA has one copy in each cell, the mt-DNA has up to 10000 copys in each cell.
So it is easier to detect mt-DNA in ancient material. This has been done with great success in many even elder cases, but of course you can never be shure if it works.
DNA-Typing from an kidney slice may be more problematic. It depends on the way, the tissue was treated with chemicals or if it was exposed to sunlight.
DNA-Typing from ancient blood traces have also been made. In Germany the "Caspar Hauser" case is famous. Caspar was killed last century and rumours said, that he was the son of the german emperor.
A few years ago the blood stains from Caspars clothes were analysed and compared with the royal German DNA but there was no match.
I think, that knowledge on the origin of the liver may be helpful for a psychological "profiling" as well as it could show up mistakes in the casework.
Once again thanks and I will try to contact Tom Ind,
Kaan |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 10:50 am | | Hi Kaan:
Thanks for the mini lesson on DNA--it's wonderful to hear such a confusing subject explained so clearly.
Evidently I phrased my earlier question badly ... I wasn't asking whether you can extract DNA from Eddowes' bones. I wanted your opinion on whether or not there are any bones left in her grave--Or is London's damp soil as corrosive as I've been told? My information was received third-hand, and I hoped you or someone on your team had direct experience with London graves.
Thanks,
Ashling |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 04:38 am | | Can anyone tell me where Sudgen got his detailed description of Kate Eddowes from? The beginning of chapter 12 of his Complete History of JtR reads:
"The woman looked about forty. She was thin and about five feet in height. She had dark auburn hair and hazel eyes."
I won't quibble about the age right now, and I can see for myself from the surviving photos that Kate was thin. But what is Sugden's source for her height, hair color and eye color? He doesn't footnote this description, and I haven't found any such details in the police reports or inquest testimony. Perhaps I read too fast, or need new glasses.
Thanks,
Ashling |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:00 pm | | I feel a bit guilty posting this as I have been on and off the boards so much recently due to problems with internet access, overwork, one year old child etc etc etc (more excuses). However, while lurking I see that some valuable contributions are occuring and I'll try and find more time to contribute.
Just one thing to contribute on this subject that crossed my mind recently. A year ago I was given a book entitled 'Every Woman's Doctor Book'. I can find no author or date and it is published by the Amalgamated Press Ltd, The Fleetway House, London. The book looks old and it's content certainly is as it talks about 'Bright's' disease which as we know from previous posts is not a term we use anymore.
This is what it says
Bright's Disease is an inflammation of the kidneys due to the action of cold or certain poisonous substances in the body. Exposure to cold and wet may bring on acute inflammation of the kidneys. The infectious fevers, such as typhoid, measles, chicken-pos and diptheria, are sometimes complicated with acute Bright's disease. The disease usually comes on suddenly, especially when it follows a chill. In the course of fevers, however, the onset is gradual. The patient looks pale, and there are puffiness of the face and swelling of the eyelids. Pain in the back, sickness, and a high temperature are usually present. The skin is dry, and there is suppression of the urine. Dropsy is a marked symptom, and there may be convulsions.
The description goes on but to add to this debate, did Eddowes body have clinical signs of theis described illness. Did she look pale (OK she might have lost a bit of blood!!)? Was there swelling of the eyelids or face (OK difficult one)? Was ther oedema (leg swelling) another sign of glomerulonephritis. The thing is, that we have more details of Eddowes body than any of them and there is no reference to this. Furthermore did any of the witnesses say that she had reported being ill with the symptoms described? |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:27 pm | | Hi TOM, I'm an erratic poster myself. I believe everyone here is grateful to have your input whenever you can can squeeze out the time.
Did biochemist Kaan Toprak who posted above succeed in contacting you regarding extracting DNA from the "Lusk kidney"?
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:35 pm | | CHRISTOPHER-MICHAEL, in scanning back through posts on this board I noticed you mentioned:
"Eddowes was 5 foot tall with hazel eyes and auburn hair, according to the researches of Neal Shelden."
This exactly matches Sugden and since Phil credits Shelden in his footnotes for later portions of chapter 12 of Complete History of JtR, perhaps I should amend my earlier question.
Does anyone know the source of Neal Shelden's description of Kate Eddowes? Did Shelden footnote his self-published work?
Thanks,
Ashling |
Author: Thomas Ind
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 09:55 am | | I haven't received anything but I haven't been getting any e-mail for a period. I think it is great having a biochemist contributing. Kaan, what type of biochemist are you? I don't know if we'll be able to get DNA from any hypothetical kidney we find. If we find a kidney (and I doubt it as if it was at the London it may have been destroyed in the bomb that hit the museum) then it is likely to be formaline preserved (we know it was kept in spirits) and then getting mDNA isn't going to be easy. However, if we find a slide from a paraffin section which I think is the more likely, then we might have better luck.
Anyway, although I want to keep my hand quiet for a bit as I am currently in a time of flux in my career, it is possible that I may move back to Barts and the Royal London next year but this time in a more permenent move. |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 08:30 pm | | Why the time gap? I have copied the following from The Casebook: For instance, P.C. Alfred Long stated the portion of apron was not there at 2.20am when he passed Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street. This statement has been questioned by many who point out that seeing as how the portion of apron was taken from Eddowes in Mitre Square, and the murder had been committed between 1.35-1.44am. Then the discovery of this piece of evidence at 2.55am, approx 1500ft and 3 streets away raises serious concerns. Why a gap of over an hour?
I thought of a possible explanation. After Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman the entire East End was enflamed. I think (somebody check me on this) the streets were heavily patrolled both by police and by citizen groups such as that of George Lusk.
Jack kills and mutilates Eddowes and then flees Mitre Square heading east. Within a very short time Eddowes is found and a hue and cry is raised.
Immediately the streets are crawling with searchers. Jack is covered in blood and can't afford to be seen. He must duck into doorways, and hide behind and under things. His flight assumes a pattern of 1. Find a hiding place. 2. Be effectively trapped there till the coast in the immediate vicinity clears. 3. Make a desperate dash. 4. Hear or see someone coming. 5. Repeat the process. Thus his movement eastward would have been greatly slowed. That doorway in Goulston street would have been one of his temporary hiding places (back in the shadows). |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 12:42 am | | That is a very likely theory. I've always thought that perhaps Jack heard footsteps approaching and decided to lay low.
On another topic, I've noticed that in recent years, writers have been given to the idea that Eddowes was not a prostitute at all, despite the evidence that she was. I'm curious as to if anyone on this board thinks this?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 05:33 am | | Hi Tom,
I'm not sure what you see as the evidence that Eddowes was a prostitute (by that I mean habitual). The likelihood is that, given her circumstances, she, like many many others, would do what she had to do to survive. That most likely involved spending vital doss money on one more gin, to dull the senses and give a bit of temporary relief from the cold and hopelessness, before having to get back on track and earn enough to get that bed. We have to assume that Eddowes fell into this same desperate cycle, and that it led to death by Jack, rather than by nature. What we don't know is how often she resorted to prostitution, whether it was once, twice, or a thousand times. The evidence does not appear to be there to tell us.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 01:58 pm | | Caz,
Newsflash...A women who takes money for sex is a prostitute. It doesn't matter if it's once a week, once a month, or ten times a day. O.J. Simpson only killed two people on one night, but that doesn't make him any less a murderer than Ted Bundy. A part-time prostitute is still a prostitute.
As to Eddowes walking the streets, let me point you towards John Kelly's inquest testimony..
John Kelly: "...Her object in going to Bermondsey was to see if she could find her daughter and get a little money from her, so that she need not walk the streets."
Mr. Crawford: "You were asked before if she walked the streets, and you said she did not"
John Kelly: "Sometimes we were without money to pay for our lodging, and we were at the time I speak of."
Naturally, John Kelly isn't going to break into a chorus of "Yes, I had my woman walk the streets for my lodging money!" No man would willingly admit to such a thing. However, he slipped up and let it out, and it's on record. Eddowes walked the streets and was doing so at the time of her death. I think too much romanticized fictionalization has been attached to these women, and we begin the fail to see the reality of their existence. Not to be disrespectful of the dead, but I believe some of us give them too much credit. I will admit that it makes for good reading, though.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 03:09 pm | | | In present day situations, when there is a choice of work for women, then I would be willing to overlook your easy dismissal of these women as mere prostitutes and your assertion that they are given too much credit. As these women lived in a time when jobs for women were scarce and limited, I have to say a person making those kinds of statements sounds like a real ass. It's easy to say with our modern view "Well heck if you took money just once you are a prostitute!" That's like saying if I sell books on E-bay for a little extra cash I am a bookseller. If I write a article for a newspaper once in my life, I am a journalist. BS. These women did what they had to do to survive and get a little cash. If their sole means of support was selling their bodies then they can rightly be called prostitutes. If they had other income and did what needed to be done to make ends meet, they were not. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 06:55 pm | | | Major Smith said that Catherine Eddowes had a small beat and was well known by the officers on her patch. If thats true , why was she not recognised by the officers who saw her corpse on that night ? Was she off her beat by a long way ? |
Author: Diana
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 07:24 pm | | | AAARGH!! What about my theory. If you guys want to talk about this prostitute/no prostitute thing start your own thread! J |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 02:02 am | | Diana,
No need to be frustrated. I for one responded to your theory. I also posted a question to the board very much in relation to the topic, although now broadened to encompass all the victims and not just Eddowes.
Ally,
You make a good point with the bookseller/journalist comparison. I disagree that work for women was scarce at that time, but will concede that the conditions and pay were abominible, as were the pay and conditions afforded to men. I also disagree that I am an ass for stating that these women are often afforded too much credit. These are women who left their families, or whose families were forced to leave them due to their alcoholism. Liz Stride had a home with her father. After an argument she splits. Later she gets a job in service for a nice family. What does she do? She steals from them and splits again, choosing a life of prostitution and alcohol. In other words, she was given opportunity but refused to take it. These women (with the possible exception of Kelly) were all alcoholics BEFORE they hit the streets. They ruined their families. Eddowes' own daughter had to move to keep her mother from coming around to mooch money. Eddowes was kicked out of a workhouse due to her erratic behavior. It was this same behavior that sent her and John Kelly back early from hop-picking. I could, but won't, go on. If these are the sort of people you'd like to forward your respect to and place on a pedestal, then by all means do so. But you shouldn't call a person an ass just because he considers the lack of sobriety as well as personal and familial responsibility to be traits not worthy of his respect.
Simon,
PC Watkins, who discovered Eddowes, had a beat that he stated took about 12-14 minutes to walk, which seems to have been average for a constable in that area at that time. Therefore, a prostitute could walk 15 minutes in any direction of her regular 'beat' and be in a district where she wouldn't be recognized by the patroling police. It's interesting you should have brought this point up, though, as it's amazing how Eddowes was so recognizable to so many constables, considering she wasn't a prostitute!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 06:32 am | | Hi Tom,
It's a slip of the pen (or keyboard) I'm sure, but when you say Liz Stride, above, you mean Polly Nichols.
Martin F |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 08:35 am | | Hello Tom,
there's nothing to be said to favour drunkeness when it's done for the sake of it. But why did these women turn to drinking in the first place? In all walks of life people are different.You could call these women alcoholics, but they didn't know that alcohol would get such a firm grip on them,--until it was too late! and alcoholism is an illness, not a bad habit that can be broken. It's no good us critizising them in 2001, we can't possibly know or imagine what their lives were like in 1888, all we do know is,-- poor was really poor, with no hope of things getting better. I'd give these women the benefit of the doubt. Polly began drinking when her husband began playing up in someway, and eventually left her with a young baby,-- to live with another woman--a woman who had helped Polly with the birth of that baby. Maybe Annie's starting to drink caused her downfall, but why did she start? She had three children, one died, and one was crippled, that could have had some effect on her and changed her personality. There is some suspicion that Kate was knocked about by Thomas Conway, who was a drinker and violent with it. I wouldn't blame Kate for anything particularly, she and Kelly were good to each other for seven years,-- Kelly was by no means a violent man,--and according to "Wolf" he didn't last long after Kate died. The one who perhaps warrants your critizism is Mary Kelly, she was a prostitute because she wanted to be one. She took Barnett for everything he had, and when he found himself wanting, she told him he was no longer welcome in her company. But really, (and I may be being naive here) I can't see a woman in 1888 taking sex lightly in a willy-nilly way, even to survive,- if caught,- 9 months of dread and apprehension, will I survive the birth, how will I look after it, if I can barely survive without a baby in my arms, how shall I survive when I have one! and there wasn't much pity around in those days.
Regards Rick. |
|
|
|
|
