|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Cathrine Eddowes
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims:
Cathrine Eddowes
Author: Neal Shelden
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 02:54 pm |        | Hi CMD,
Thanks for getting back on that one I'll try to put the photographs under an Annie Chapman heading. There is another author I've sent copies to but I don't think he will mind either if they're on casebook.
It was a shame that Annie's Great Granddaughter had a knock on her door from an agency reporter, as I think it's put paid to any remote chance that she could've come forward in the future.
Where an Eddowes descendant's concerned, I would prefer someone in future who would be happy to reveal themselves and make my position easier. My only worry is that a descendant of Kate will probably have no knowledge of her, and also no photographs? I think that finding Annie was very lucky.
All the best.
Neal. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 01 September 2002 - 09:59 am | | To anyone,
I've just been looking through some of my Eastend photos and I notice in a picture of Jack the Ripper's Corner, that I had my wife take with me standing where Kates body was found, on the wall above where Kate would have lain is a plaque stating, Site of St James Church
Dukes Place
1623 1874
does this mean there was an old church covering part of Mitre Square until 1874?.
Also another question, does Whitechapel Bell Foundry still exist? thanks, Viper, maybe?
Rick |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 01 September 2002 - 10:49 am | | Rick,
The answers to your questions are Yes and Yes.
The church of St James Duke Street was built over the site of the Holy Trinity Priory's old chapter house in 1622. It was substantially rebuilt in 1727 and demolished in 1874. Some of its fittings were removed to the church of St. Katherine Cree nearby (at the corner of Leadenhall St. and Creechurch Lane). Most of the church's nave would have covered the current playground of the Sir John Cass School (built 1908). However the 1873 ordnance map shows an extension or adjoining building (possibly some kind of vestry?) on the north side of the church, i.e. extending into Mitre Square's current area.
Glad to say that the Whitechapel Bell Foundry is still going strong. It has cast some of the most famous bells in London, and way beyond. See here.
Regards, V. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 01 September 2002 - 01:01 pm | | Hello Viper, that was quick service, thank you very much, you're a gent.
I got the address okay
Rick |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 11:05 am | | Apologies for what some may see as trivial questions regarding Catherine Eddowes' movements. Is the King Street bordering Mitre Square the same as King Street, Bermondsey? Or are these two seperate areas? I'm totally unfamiliar with London.
Thanks,
David |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 03:01 pm | | Hi David,
They are two different streets.
King Street, Bermondsey, was off Tower Bridge Road, south of Swan Road. The street no longer exists. Bermondsey was, and still is, south of the river.
Cheers,
John |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 03:55 pm | | Thank you again, John!
Best,
David |
Author: Billy Markland
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 10:09 am | | Can someone clear up my confusion on this point.
In the Eddowes Inquest Joseph Lawende is quoted as saying in response to the question by the Coroner of, "What sort of man was this?"
Lawende, "He had on a cloth cap with a peak of the same."
At which point, at Mr. Crawford's request, the coroner dropped that line of questioning.
However, at the Casebook Witnesses page, they list Lawende describing the man as:
"Aged 30, 5'7", fair complexion, brown moustache, salt-and-pepper coat, red neckerchief, grey peaked cloth cap. Sailor-like."
Since something sounded familiar, I thumbed through A-Z and found this under Witness in Whitechurch Lane:
"...furtive man in a short coat and a sailor-like cap sitting on a doorstep wiping his hands."
My questions are:
-Do we have any idea if Lawende ever gave a description &, if so, what it was?
-In Lawende's above description does "Sailor-like" refer to the person or the hat?
-Since the Lawende statement on the Witness page differs from the Inquest testimony so drastically, is it an oopsie? And if so, from whom did that description come from?
-Who was the witness in Whitechurch Lane if not Lawende and again, from what source was it gleaned?...(I just found in A-Z the secondary source was Sugden's Complete History of JtR...but what was the original source?)
My apologies if these have been answered before but, try as I can, I could not find the answers.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 11:43 am | | Hello, everyone,
We're told that Catherine Eddowes preferred the Mile End workhouse because the work regime there was easier than other places. I'm aware of the oakum picking done at most places, but what chores were expected at Mile End?
Also, I've another question about Bermondsey. I have the impression it's south of Whitechapel, but how far? I'm particularly interested in what kind of walk it would have been.
Thanks,
Dave |
Author: Jack Traisson
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 04:47 pm | | Hi David,
To get to Bermondsey from Whitechapel, Eddowes would probably have just followed Whitechapel Road heading southwest, starting on Whitechapel Highstreet, on to Aldgate High Street, to Fenchurch Street, before turning south and crossing London Bridge. At this point Bermondsey is on her left (east). The trip is little more than a mile. May I make the suggestion of investing in a map or two from Alan Godfrey or any other fine map dealer. They are inexpensive compared to many Ripper books.
Mile End Workhouse would have been like most others, but perhaps the work regime was better for Eddowes there or the people in charge treated her more compassionately. It's difficult to say. There are lots of excellent sites about workhouses. This is a good link about workhouse life:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/workhouse/index.html
Cheers,
John |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 05:25 pm | | John,
Thanks again for the information about Kate's possible route, and how far of a walk that would have been. I came across the workhouse link you've provided last week--you're right, it's a great source. Some interesting stuff there, from what picking oakum was all about (with photographs) to 1881 census figures for several of the area workhouses. One woman staying at Mile End (I think), named Kailly, occupation seamstress caught my eye Her age is a couple of years off from Catherine Eddowes's, however, but the entry reminded me of Kate's fondness for the name Kelly. No reason to think that was her, however.
Thanks for the tip on where to get a map--I should probably splurge and quit bugging people about where places were!
Many thanks,
Dave |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 05:37 pm | | Mr. Traisson's route is correct for 1888. (Tower Bridge didn't open until 1894). In all likelihood though the route would have involved well over a mile's walk. That aside, the question must be asked as to whether Kate ever got farther than Aldgate on 29th September. The likelihood is that she didn't.
Regards, V. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 05:43 pm | | Hi, Viper
Why do you think no farther than Aldgate? Don't leave me hanging
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 06:18 pm | | Viper,
While I'm thinking about it, you might be interested to know that Philip Sugden also writes that John Kelly's boots were pawned Saturday, and not Friday. In the notes for his chapter on Kate Eddowes, he briefly discusses the inconsistencies and seems to opt for the possibility that the pawnbroker may have made a mistake dating the ticket. I guess it comes down to who you think is more reliable, John Kelly or the pawnbroker (I'd go with the pawnbroker, but concede the possibility that he made an error).
Thought you might be interested, since we discussed this topic last week in chat.
Cheers,
David |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 07:41 pm | | Some years ago, if I'd chanced upon this web site and encountered conversations of the sort I am reading here now, I'd have thought that surely these were far advanced Ripperologists, towering head and shoulders above the common lot, with a superfluity of ability to solve the case. But after idling here so many times, I have come to know some of the reasons why the case is not yet solved though it could have been long ago. The mistakes of Ripperologists are not that they lack IQ, dedication or acuteness, I can assure you. It's something different, something that takes me back to my studies of Nietzsche. There is something about serious Ripperology that eschews a belief. It is just too practical, too research-oriented, too virtuous in the sense of refusing anything that can't be proved immediately. There is a peculiar nihilism to it, the kind of thing that would lead people to establish a colony on the moon without knowing why first they went there, that sort of thing. Something's missing--a kind of responsibility for why one believes what one believes, and then obversely an ability to go ahead and believe if the belief is an apposite one.
A list of questions for the first cold snap of autumn, here in New England.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 11:31 pm | | David wrote:
"There is something about serious Ripperology that eschews a belief."
This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Ripperology is already filled with way too many people who come up with beliefs before they had any proof and then try to find things to support their belief.
Dan |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 04:29 am | | David (O'F),
Thanks for that reminder. I did look into the little matter of the boot pawning once again for you. The 28th September date on the pawn ticket is a mystery, but as far as the chronology is concerned I agree totally with Sugden's analysis (page 512 of the first paperback edition). Unless the whole of John Kelly's story is wrong, the only date that made sense for the boot pawning is the Saturday morning (29th). If the boots had been pawned on the Friday night then Kate would surely not have trudged all the way to the Mile End casual ward.
OK, Aldgate. What do we know about Kate's movements prior to her murder?
We know that she parted from Kelly at about 2 p.m.; we know that she expressed an intention to visit her daughter but didn't manage it; we know she was after money and had none when she set out; we don't have any known sitings of her anywhere that afternoon; we know that she was drunk and incapable at around 8:30, that she was arrested close to St. Botolph's Church and that she returned to the Aldgate area after her release from the cells.
It seems to me that having not seen her daughter for a long time, Kate must surely have realised that the chances of both finding her and getting money from her was a long shot. In fact, one wonders whether this was story was even true. It provided John Kelly with a handy diversion. He would not have wanted to admit living off his partner's immoral earnings.
Rather than a speculative trip to Bermondsey there was an easier way for Kate to earn their doss money - and the area around St. Botolph's church provided it. Plenty of anonymous, homeless women shuffling around it looking for customers with virtual immunity from the law. Kate had obviously got lucky at least once - somebody had either given her money or had bought her a lot of drink. Of course, if she had remained in one area for several hours there is the question as to why nobody came forward who remembered seeing her, but there were lots of pubs in Aldgate and she needn't have remained in any one of them long enough to have attracted attention, especially if she was with one or more men.
Ultimately this opinion is based on a gut feeling. It is all speculative, but for me the fact that on release from the police cell Kate went straight back to Aldgate is significant. Her befuddled brain may well have been making the association between her earlier success in getting money there and her need to find money again.
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 06:32 am | | Hi, Rick and Viper:
Rick, as Viper told you, the Whitechapel Bell Foundry very much does still exist. I have been meaning to complete an article for Ripperologist about the foundry. The company, located at 32/34 Whitechapel Road, London E1 1DY, has a website. The company prides itself that it has been in continuous operation for nearly 600 years and with justification makes the claim that it is "the world's most famous bell foundry." The bell-making business is thus an aspect of Whitechapel that eclipses, many would say, the importance and fame of the Whitechapel murders.
In terms of us Americans, the company's greatest claim to fame is that the foundry cast the Liberty Bell, the big bell in Philadelphia with the crack in it. However, to think that this is the company's "main" claim to fame somewhat shortchanges the work of the foundry because the Whitechapel Bell Foundry has made bells for churches and institutions worldwide, including Big Ben at the Houses of Parliament and for great churches and cathedrals and parliaments across the planet. Thus, in a way, the bell foundry has contributed to both British and American democracy and that of countries around the world.
On a slightly different but, as you will see, connected, topic, as part of my research into the Jewish East End, I recently purchased secondhand a copy of a photo book, Memories of the Jewish East End edited by Aumie and Michael Shapiro, the first of two such pamphlets put out by the couple and the Springboard Educational Trust in 1985 and 1987, the followup publication being called Memories of the Jewish East End.
Showing the close, shoulder-to-shoulder nature of the Jewish presence in the East End is a spread of photographs in the first book showing Black Lion Yard, off Whitechapel Road, near the bell foundry, which "had over 12 jewellery shops in the inter-war years." The yard, now gone (a large building was built on the site in 1983), was less than 100 yards long and connected Old Montague Street with Whitechapel Road.
A 1920s photograph of members of the Royal Family entering a car after visiting the bell foundry shows Black Lion Yard in the background with the sign advertising Jones Bros. as cowkeepers. Another sign from 1939 for the firm of J.D. and J. Evans in Old Montague Street, where the firm kept 40 cows in sheds, advertised in Hebrew, milk "Fresh from the Cow."
Also in Old Montague Street, which runs west to east, paralleling and to the north of Whitechapel Road (in the direction of Buck's Row, now Durward Street), were a number of booksellers selling Jewish books and sheet music. The cover of Memories of the Jewish East End shows a view from the 1890s of Mazin's bookshop, Old Montague Street, Whitechapel Road. The bookshop's facade, was covered in advertisements in Hebrew and English that the shop offered "printing in Hebrew and other languages" and that the establishment was "the cheapest house for all kinds of Hebrew books, periodicals, etc., silk & woollen talism and synagogue vestments."
All the best
Chris |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 10:00 am | | Further to the Mile End workhouse and John Kelly's boots, I, too, believe that the boots were really pawned on the 29th of September.
At the first session of the Eddowes inquest on 4 October, Kelly - during the course of his initial testimony - noted '. . .if we had no money to pay for our lodgings we would have to walk about all night.', and later that 'On the Friday I earned 6p at a job, and I said, 'Here, Kate, you take 4d and go to the lodging-house and I will go to Mile-End,' but she said, 'No, you go and have a bed and I will go to the casual ward.', following that with 'I know there was some tea and sugar found on her body. She bought that out of some boots we pawned at Jones's for 2s 6d. I think it was on Saturday morning that we pawned the boots.' Mr Crawford, the City solicitor, then produced the pawntickets - which were dated Friday the 28th - and asked Kelly if he had been drunk when the pawning took place, intimating his memory was unrelaible on that particular point.
But consider. Had the boots been pawned on Friday, then the amount given for them would have paid for both Kelly and Eddowes to stay at Cooney's lodging house. As they did not - and Kelly noted that the 6d he earned on Friday was not enough for them both to have the same bed - it seems reasonable to me to presume the boots really were pawned on the Saturday, and that the '28th' was a clerical error.
And also, while not wishing to completely dismiss the accepted view of Eddowes as a prostitute, I would also mention Frederick Williamson's testimony during the Eddowes inquest, where he noted 'I believe she got her living by hawking about the streets and cleaning amongst the Jews in Whitechapel.' Uncorroborated, to be sure, but it could also be taken into account as a possible source for Eddowes' drinking money on the last night of her life.
CMD |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 12:20 pm | | Many thanks for your opinions, Viper and Christopher-Michael. I've been puzzling over this matter for a couple of months now, and I was glad to read what you think about it. I agree that the story makes a lot more sense if they pawned the boots on Saturday morning. But I still have some questions, because I think we're not getting the full story at the inquest--there's something weird going on. It's nothing to do with Kate's murder, though. My interest lies in the kind of relationship she had with Kelly. And it's clear, I think, that Kelly's not being totally forthcoming at the inquest.
John testifies that he made 6d working, with 4d going to him, 2d to Kate. He also admits he was drinking--how'd he pay for it? The scenario I had in mind has them drinking John's wages, then pawning the boots on Friday for more drinking and for a bed.
But why send Kate off to Mile End with only two shillings? Why not keep her at Cooney's? I don't know. Why try to get a loan from Annie when they had enough money to live off of for a couple of days (and I believe they lived the kind of life in which the future only extends to a day at a time)? And asking Annie for money shows their desperation--it shows they were flat broke on Saturday, or close to it. Kate hadn't seen her for two years, and then didn't they quarrel about Kate's excessive borrowing?
I wonder if they didn't have themselves a drinking binge on Friday, and this is what Kelly's trying to hide, not so much Kate's prostitution (and I agree, CMD, that she made her money mostly by hawking and was a casual prostitute at worst). He's never adamant about the Saturday date, and I think he always says they sold the boots "Friday or Saturday." Phil Sugden writes that the authorites were 'browbeating' him. Why would they? Because they'd just interviewed the pawnbroker, that's why, and it's my opinion he remembered the recent sale well, and was positive about the Friday dating.
I disagree about Kate's trip to Bermondsey. I think she went straight to Annie's door in King Street, fully expecting to find her there. It's true they didn't have a good relationship to say the least, but I think when Kate realized that her own daughter gave her the slip (as her sisters had), it set off a state of melancholia which resulted in a drinking binge.
How'd she pay for it? Prostituting herself in the St. Botolph's area? Possibly, although that's a lot of johns for the state of drunkeness she was found in.
Hawking? Maybe, but hawking what? I don't think anything hawkable was found on her body. And I don't have any answers about how she came by money the evening of the 29th. I do think it's something inocuous, and nothing to do with JTR. Maybe it's something as simple as her encountering a chum who bought her a few rounds.
A last observation: Kate left Kelly around two, and was supposed to meet him at four--this is about the right length of time for a walk of two miles. That she misses the appointment indicates to me that something unexpected happened: Annie's absence and another binge, not something reasonable and rational as "I need to make some money." And why wouldn't she have let John know what was going on, when she knew he was waiting for her? Meeting John is the first thing that comes to her mind when she recovers her senses, hours later, and realizes how late she is. "I shall get a damned fine hiding when I get home."
Just for the record, I think John Kelly was kind to Kate, and not the Tom Conway type, but I think there would've been an argument over Kate's failure to turn up when she was supposed to.
Anyway, Viper and CMD, thanks very much for your responses. I think Catherine Eddowes was a much more interesting person than she's given credit for, and not just another dead prostitute. I love talking about these sort of things probably even more than I do thinking about who the Ripper could have been.
Thanks,
Dave
Has the Star story, in which they interview John Kelly been transcribed to this website? I've looked, but haven't been able to find it. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 03:49 pm | | Thanks for your thoughts on that, David. For the record I agree that Kate was not a full time prostitute, but a part-timer (it was sometimes a case of 'needs must'}; that she did indeed do other jobs to support herself sometimes and that there was sufficient time for her to have attempted to find her daughter in Bermondsey, assuming it was her intention. And yes, from what little we know about the victims I find Kate the most colourful character too.
It did also occur to me that the boots could have been pawned on Friday night and the procedes drunk away then, necessitating Kate's trip to the workhouse. But to accept that means not only that the whole chronology of Kelly's story was wrong, but also there is the little matter that he claimed the couple still had enough money to buy a few little luxuries (like tea) the following day and to have a decent breakfast. After a long session of drinking I don't see Kate wanting to go all the way to Mile End - more likely the couple would crash at Cooney's and try to get the money for their breakfast next morning. That's why I tend to favour Sudgen's idea of a pawnbroker's clerical error. I realise it's all too easy to label this sort of pronouncement a cop-out, but it is a perfectly fair suggestion - who knows, perhaps the pawnbroker had had a heavy night and wasn't thinking too straight first thing in the morning?
To my best of my knowledge the story you allude to in the Star has not been transcribed for the Casebook. I've certainly not seen a paper copy of it. Alex Chisholm may be the man to help you here.
Regards, V. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 04:13 pm | | Awfully fun to talk about. Of course, I have to admit that it's very possible that the pawnbroker might have made a mistake, and I don't believe it's any sort of cop-out. Early in the morning, it happens, and I've often done the same thing myself.
What makes me question it is the coroner's certainty that the date of Friday afternoon (not night) wasn't a mistake--for me, it reinforces the idea that the pawnbroker confirmed a Friday date during a police interview. It's only inference on my part though, and I wish I knew what was said.
Cheers, Viper--hope you had a good weekend. It occured to me that the new book, "News from Whitechapel" might be a good source for the Star story.
Dave |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 05:47 pm | | Hi Chris, thank you for your post. The next time I visit Whitechapel I think I shall be having a look around the Bell Foundry. I think it's very interesting to think that place was operating when Jack was,-- but I suppose the buildings that were there in 88 have been replaced?.
And a herd of 40 cows were at one time nearby?, I can't help thinking,--poor cows. The reason I asked Viper about the Bell Foundry was, I knew the Liberty Bell had been cast there and I wanted to put an American friend of mine wise to the fact, I thought he would find it interesting. Thank you again Chris,
All the Best, Rick |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 07:04 pm | | Hi Dave
I suppose I should say; “Yes, all is revealed in the News from Whitechapel,” but I can’t. Wealth of information that it is, News from Whitechapel focuses on the Daily Telegraph and only has a few brief extracts from the Star.
The report your are looking for, I believe, comes from the Star, 3 October 1888, page 2, and reads as follows:
The body that was found in Mitre-square has been positively identified as that of
A WOMAN NAMED KELLY,
who, strangely enough, lived in a lodging-house in the same street as the one frequented by her fellow victim. There can be no possible doubt of the identity. The body was identified at a late hour last night by a man who has been living with her for seven years, and all the mystery connected with the pawn-tickets and with the India-ink marks on her arm are cleared up. The man’s name is John Kelly, and
THE STORY HE TELLS
is one of very great interest, throwing no light on the probable authorship of the crime, but illustrating in a very pathetic manner the mode of life in those low lodging-houses. A Star reporter had a long conversation with Kelly this morning at the lodging-house, No. 55, Flower and Dean-street. He is about 40 years of age, and, to all appearance, is a poor hard-working man. He told his story in a manner that carried with it an unmistakable stamp of genuineness. At times he almost broke down with emotion, for, as he expressed it, “I have lived with that girl a long while, and we never quarrelled.” We will give his story as nearly as possible in his own words:-
“It is nigh on to seven years since I met Kate, and it was in this very lodging-house I first set eyes on her. We got throwed together a good bit, and the result was that we made a regular bargain. We have lived here ever since, as the people here will tell you, and have never left here except when we’ve gone to the country together hopping. I don’t pretend that she was my wife. She was not. She told me long ago that she had a husband, and told me what his name was. It was
TOM CONWAY.
She said he was a pensioner from the Royal Irish Artillery. She had had several children by him, but I don’t know that I ever heard where they were except one daughter, who is married to a gunmaker and lives in King-street, Bermondsey. She told me all about her husband one night, when I spoke about the letters “T. C.” being pricked in her arm. It was Conway that did that years and years ago, and it was by them letters partly that I recognised her last night. But she had a falling out with her husband and
THEY PARTED.
She used to tell me she never wanted to see him again, but I remember her saying once or twice that she had met him in the street. The last time she spoke of him was a good while ago. She never said anything about his trying to cause her any trouble, or that she was in any way afraid of him. I don’t believe he ever bothered her at all. Well, Kate and me lived on here as best we could. She got a job of charing now an then, and I picked up all the odd jobs I could in the Spitalfields Market. The people here were very kind to us. If Kate ever went with other men I never knew it. She would take a drop to drink, but she was never troublesome. I remember once she was up at the police station, and I suppose the police officers were right who thought they recognised her by that. We went hopping together mostly every year. We went down this year as usual. We didn’t get on any too well, and started to hoof it home. We came along in company with another man and woman who had worked in the same fields, but who parted with us to go to Chatham when we turned off towards Maidstone. The woman said to Kate, “I have got
A PAWNTICKET
for a flannel shirt. I wish you’d take it, since you’re going up to town. It is only in for 9d., and it may fit your old man. So Kate took it and we trudged along. It was in at Jones’s, Church-street, in the name of Emily Burrell. She put the ticket back in our box and we moved on. We did not have money enough to keep us going till we got to town, but we did get there and came straight to this house. Luck was dead against us. On last Saturday morning we were both done up for cash. I had nothing but a pair of boots that would bring anything, and I says to her, “We’ll pop the boots and have a bite to eat anyway.” “Oh, no,” says she, “don’t do that;” but I told her I’d pawn the shirt off my back to keep her out of the street, for she had had only a few odd jobs for a goodish spell back But she said she’d go and see what her daughter could do. Howsomever, we popped the boots, and sat in this ‘ere kitchen and had what turned out to be
OUR LAST MEAL TOGETHER.
She told me she had made up her mind to go to her daughter’s in Bermondsey. I begged her to be back early, for we had been talking about the Whitechapel murders, and I said I did not want to have that knife get at her. “Don’t you fear for me,” said she, “I’ll take care of myself, and I shan’t fall into his hands.” With that she went out. I went with her to the street corner below, and I never laid eyes on her again till I saw her down at the mortuary last night. I was out in the market all day, but did no good. When she did not come home at night I didn’t worry, for I thought her daughter might have asked her to stay over Sunday with her. So on Sunday morning I wandered round in the crowds that had been gathered by the talk about the two fresh murders. I stood and looked at the very spot where my poor old gal had laid with her body all cut to pieces and I never knew it. I never thought of her in connection with it, for I thought she was safe at her daughter’s. Yesterday morning I began to be worried a bit, but I did not guess the truth until after I had come back from another bad day in the market. I came in here and asked for Kate, she had not been in. I sat down on that bench by the table and carelessly picked up a Star paper. I read down the page a bit, and
MY EYE CAUGHT THE NAME OF “BURRILL.”
It looked familiar, but I didn’t think where I had seen it until I came to the word “pawn-ticket.” Then it came over me all at once. The tin box, the two pawn-tickets, the one for that flannel shirt, and the other for my boots. But could Kate have lost them? I read a little further. “The woman had the letters ‘T. C.,’ in India ink, on her arm.” Man, you could have knocked me down with a feather. It was my Kate, and no other. I don’t know how I braced up to go to the police, but I did. They took me down to see the body, and
I KNEW IT WAS HER.
I knew it before I saw it, and I knew her for all the way she was cut. I told the police all I have told you, and I suppose I will tell it again to the Coroner. I never knew if she went to her daughters at all. I only wish to God she had, for we had lived together a long while and never had a quarrel.
The keeper of the lodging-house fully confirms Kelly’s statements as to the recent history of the murdered woman. Kelly himself bears a good character, both at the lodging-house and among the butchers in the market. None of the frequenters of the lodging-houses in the neighborhood seem to have ever seen any man but Jack Kelly in company with the woman, and no one knows of any other relations of the deceased further than the daughter she talked of visiting, except a sister who was said to be the wife of a farthing book seller living in Thrawl-street, Spitalfields. The police will look up this sister, and both she and Kelly will be at the inquest.
Hope that helps
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 29 September 2002 - 07:26 pm | | It certainly does, Alex--I've read excerpts from this story, but not the whole thing until now. Thank you for taking the time to type up this lengthy piece--very nice of you to do so.
I think the above should be added to the press reports section, if possible.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: alex chisholm
Monday, 30 September 2002 - 10:04 pm | | Your are very welcome, Dave.
I'm glad you found it useful.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Neal Shelden
Tuesday, 08 October 2002 - 05:28 pm | | I seem to remember that on a previous post someone asked about Kate Eddowes cousin who was hanged in Stafford in 1866.
He was born Christopher Charles Robinson in either April/May/June 1847 at Wolverhampton.
And died as Charles C. Robinson in January 1866.
I would be interested if anyone has the birth certificate to know which aunt of Kate's that Christopher was born too?
Thanks.
Neal. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 12:42 pm | | Another Bermondsey question, since it keeps cropping up in my reading. As a neighborhood, was Bermondsey similar to Whitechapel? As you crossed the river and entered Bermondsey, would you have noticed much of a change in atmosphere? Or would it have been more of the same (noisy, large crowds, etc).
I know they had a workhouse there, which says low-income inhabitants to me, but is this accurate? I saw an old post of Caz's in which she talks about there being a lot of photographers doing business there (at least in the 1850s).
Also, does anyone have any thoughts on Patricia Cornwell's statement that the streets would have been covered in a sulphorus fog from the gas lamps? And that the lighting was sporadic? If there was insufficient lighting, I don't see where such a fog would come from.
Dave |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Tuesday, 19 November 2002 - 05:48 pm | | Whatho Dave,
I should have thought the fog came from the river as a mist and mixed itself with the smoke from the many fires in the houses and factories and from the steam locomotives chugging their ways around the railway system. It was better known as smog, a portmanteau word formed from smoke and fog.
Although the gas light would have given off fumes, I think they were invisable. And as you infer, there would have not been enough lamps to make any difference. Of course there would have been smoke from the gas works.
The last of these smogs was seen in the early 1950s and they were seen off by the Clean Air acts forcing smokeless zones on various urban areas.
I should point out I'm not an expert so there may be (and probably is) someone better than me to comment.
Cheers, Mark |
Author: Jack Traisson
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 04:11 am | | Hi David,
Bermondsey was opened up to industry in the early 1800's, bringing with it a flood of people and quickly becoming overcrowded. The first tinned foods in Britian were canned in Bermondsey. The area was known as 'London's Larder'. I believe the leather trade was popular here also, though I am not sure about photography. But by the 1850's photography seemed popular all over the metopolis. The local docks and food business created a good many jobs for the locals, but in the case of the dockwork much of it was casual. Like Whitechapel, there were open sewers, and inadequate housing. One single tap serving too many houses. The residents who took there drinking water from the Thames were hit particularly hard by the cholera outbreak in the middle of the 19th century. As far as I know it didn't have as large a concentration of doss houses in Bermondsey that were prevelant in Spitalfields. Overall, yes, in 1888, at least socioeconimically, Bermondsey was similar to Whitechapel/Spitalfields.
Two other interesting notes about Bermondsey: In the original Domesday book, the King owned the land in Bermondsey, William having it after Harold. Also Michael
Caine (the best Abberline on film thus far) was born there.
Perhaps Viper I (King of East End history) can provide you with some more details if required.
Cheers,
p.s. Whatho Mark! I always wanted to say that. |
Author: Timsta
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 09:43 am | | David, Jack:
When I worked in the area (early 80s), I seem to remember a major employer was the Peek Freans cracker factory. I'm not sure exactly when that opened but I know it had been a fixture for many, many decades.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 11:01 am | | Mark, John, and Timsta:
Thanks for the Bermondsey information. I'd wondered if the river had served as a kind of boundary. I've only lived in one large city (Chicago), and there the neighborhoods can switch pretty rapidly in the space of crossing a single street.
I enjoy learning about the London atmosphere, and what it would have been like to have walked through the streets there. I found "A Night in Whitechapel" fascinating reading. I also enjoyed reading about Stewart Evans's police lantern experiment some time back. Or the weather conditions that were up at the Casebook Productions site (for example, Sept 29, 1888 was a cloudy, drizzly day. The skies were gray and the cobblestones were wet with rain.) You know, I love setting.
Anything Viper (or anyone else) might want to add is always welcome from me.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 12:39 pm | | Dave,
If you ever get the chance to walk from Mitre sq to Goulston st then do it.
The transformation is outstanding....especially when you come to Middlesex st.
Stand on the west side of the street and you're in one of the richest areas in England and stand on the east and you're probably in the poorest.
Its odd.
Monty
|
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 02:35 pm | | Monty,
I'd like nothing better than to take that walk. Followed by a round or five in one of the nearby pubs!
Dave |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 05:23 pm | | The notoriety of late nineteenth century Spitalfields today is partly the result of its association with Jack the Ripper. But with its ‘wicked quarter mile’ of common lodging houses with all its problems of both an indigenous and transient underclass of persons it is fair to say that even without the Ripper murders the place would still be talked about today in historical circles as the place most characterising the social divide of late Victorian England.
Also, Spitalfields was at the heart of a much wider area in which poverty was endemic. About 900,000 Londoners lived in what was just starting to be known as the East End and a significant proportion of them lived in chronic want. Those studies of the East End’s social condition by Charles Booth could be deemed to be the start of modern sociology, as he brought the facts about this massive sore at the heart of Empire to a wider audience.
Yet it would be entirely wrong to think that all poverty in London was confined to the districts north-east of the River Thames. London was – and still is – notable for being a city where it is possible to walk from an affluent, desirable locality to a highly undesirable one inside a minute or two. All districts of London had their slums, often tucked away just behind elegant facades of the main streets.
Over time some slums were broken up, but new ones appeared instead. The Victorians frequently deployed road building as a means of breaking up the bigger rookeries, since it was a method which had the added benefit of simultaneously improving the transport system. Likewise, railway companies were allowed to acquire whole areas in slum districts for their lines into London and for their main termini. All this had very mixed results, since the poorest elements had nowhere better to go, and were either forced to pack more densely into the existing streets or to move on to the next rookery.
The area of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe is an interesting one. Historically associated with the River Thames by location, the district had grown considerably as a result of the expansion of the docks in the early nineteenth century in just the same way that the areas of Shadwell, Limehouse and the Isle of Dogs had north of the river. As such they were home to many waterside trades, and to waterside workers including dockhands, which was a casual occupation. In addition, and also like the area directly over the river to the north, they were on the eastern side of the metropolis. In Western Europe the prevailing winds are from the SW. As a result dirty and smelly industries tend to be concentrated on the eastern side of towns and cities so that the pollution is blown away from them. Bermondsey was known for its food processing, including flour milling, jam making, pickle manufacture and brewing (both beer and vinegar). It was also home to tanning and leather production and to the fur trade. There were glue factories and a candle manufacturing works, these products taking advantage of the bones and fat respectively of the animals used in the leather and fur trades. Rotherhithe had a major town gasworks. Many of these industries qualify most assuredly as odorous!
As can be imagined the area was solidly working class and very poor. The rapid growth of this part of South London inevitably meant an excess of poor quality housing and overcrowded conditions. In fact by 1891 Booth’s research eventually led him to think that there was a higher percentage of the population in poverty (over 50%) in Southwark and Bermondsey than in the East London districts.
Hoping this helps. Regards, V. |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 05:27 pm | | Questions of the sort above do arise on the Casebook with some regularity. So here is a thought for those of you interested to consider…
There are a number of people posting here who seem to buy every Ripper book that comes onto the market – even when they state their low expectations of some books before purchasing them. In that case perhaps there might also be a place in your book collections for one really good general purpose work about the history of London. It can be used as a reference work for much of the historical and socio-economic background to the case.
One book I would highly recommend for this purpose is Stephen Inwood’s A History of London, published by Macmillan, 1998. For UK residents it’s available now for just £12 online. I’ve always found ordering books over the net to be a double-edged sword. The discounts offered are frequently offset by the high postage and packing charge. However, AmazonUK currently have an offer whereby book orders over £39 are delivery-free until 12th December. So if you’re buying the latest batch of Ripper publications online you might consider squeezing a general purpose book into your order while you can take advantage of the cost saving.
Regards, V. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 05:52 pm | | Viper,
Thank you for the post and for the book recommendation, both are indeed helpful. I've added the book to my list.
Apologies for bringing up an often mentioned topic--I ran a search and didn't come up with anything specific on Bermondsey, other than what's on this thread already. I'll try a less specific search.
Thanks again!
Dave |
Author: Jack Traisson
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 06:05 pm | | One further addition I would like to add to Viper's sage advice about buying a history book or two is for people to also consider purchasing a period map or two. Geographical questions come up quite frequently on the boards as well. You can purchase a few maps from Alan Godfrey (or others) for less than the cost of one Ripper book.
http://www.alangodfreymaps.co.uk
Cheers |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 09:01 am | | I'll second Viper's endorsement of Inwood. It's particularly thorough in its treatment of 19c. London.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 10:30 am | | Has any kind of official report of the police interview with the pawnbroker Jones (I believe that was his name) survived?
Thanks,
Dave |
Author: Jon Van Skiver
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 03:39 pm | | Hi everyone,
After reading the various press reports regarding the funerals of Kate Eddowes and Liz Stride I was struck by the disparity between the funerals. Both women were killed the same night by the same hand, both lived in the same area and both were seemingly well liked. Liz was buried almost anonymously, with few people knowing, or caring, while Kate’s funeral was, according to the reports, well attended, with people lining the road while the hearse traveled to the cemetery.
My questions are: why was there was such a difference and why did the general population not turn out for Liz like they did for Kate, and why didn’t the Swedish Church help pay for Liz’s funeral, since they knew her.
Thanks,
Jon |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 09:40 pm | | Jon,
Eddowes was like many people in Whitechapel, Stride was not. That's the reason. Stride in London was like an Eskimo in Honolulu--not much sympathy there.
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 01:45 pm | | Jon,
I also think that the more grotesque mutilations that Kate endured also had something to do with it, as well as David's point. Liz was simply killed, but Kate was defiled too. The press had more to sensationalize with her.
B |
|
|
|
|
