Author: Ashleah Skinner
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 07:48 pm |        |
| A common question is that is there any real evidence that Eddowes was a prostitute? |
Author: Jon
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 09:35 pm | |
Ashleah
It is really difficult to 'prove' any destitute female was a prostitute without a direct admission to that effect. Euphemistically they were referred to as 'unfortunates', that is that they had no identifiable means of regular income, and were known to frequent pubs and certain streets late at night and carried their entire possessions on their person.
Others have argued that Eddowes was not known to be a prostitute but to what end?, do you have a reason for your question?.
And, may I ask if the answer really matters whether it be yes or no?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 09:37 pm | |
Ashleah -
It depends on what you mean by "any real evidence." If you mean do we have record that she was brought up on charges or specifically referenced by contemporary police as a prostitute, then no. What we do have is the Times of 16 October, which reported:
"Conway [Eddowes' ex-husband] . . .states that he left Eddowes in 1880 in consequence of her intemperate habits."
Admittedly, "intemperate habits" could simply be an oblique reference to alcoholism. However, we also have in evidence Home Office file HO 144/221/A49301C, folios 162-170, which is a 27 October report from Inspector James McWilliam, head of the City Police Detective Department. He notes:
". . .she had lived with a man named Thomas Conway, a pensioner for about twenty years & had three children by him - two sons & a daughter, but Conway was eventually compelled to leave her on account of her drunken and immoral habits." (emphasis added).
Of course, we can counter these statements with those of Eddowes' paramour, John Kelly, who noted at the first session of her inquest that "I never suffered her to go out for immoral purposes," and of lodging-house deputy Frederick Williamson, who swore "I did not know her to walk the street. I never knew or heard of her being intimate with any one but Kelly." But these asseverations have been countered (by Sugden, among others) with the observation that neither Kelly nor Wilkinson could not admit to Eddowes' prostitution lest they were to be charged for living off her immoral earnings (Kelly) or for keeping a "disorderly house." (Wilkinson).
And these statements are further complicated by that of Major Sir Henry Smith, one-time Commissioner of the City Police, who wrote in his memoirs that Eddowes was known as a prostitute to them. If she was, however - and we have no way of knowing - such evidence was destroyed in 1940, when the City Police files were lost during the Blitz.
What it comes down to, then, Ashleah, is personal prejudice. What does "intemperate" mean? Was Conway a fully reliable source? Was Kelly? Was Wilkinson? Was Smith? For my part, I think she was an occasional, though not habitual, prostitute - an occupation almost impossible to avoid for one of Eddowes' station at that time and in that place. But for the argument that she was not one of the frail sisterhood, see Bob Hinton's book From Hell: The Jack the Ripper Mystery.
Regards,
CMD
(nb - I have sent you a copy of the Ripper Notes Fido interview today) |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Tuesday, 06 August 2002 - 12:38 am | |
Hi Ashlea,
One other point, to add to CMD's well done post, is that Eddowes was earlier in the day completely broke. She said she was going to visit her sister?/daughter? to try and get some money, but that did not occur. However, later that day she had consumed enough drink to be taken in by the police for drunkeness. She somehow, without having money, got access to drinks. Since prostitutes at the time would sell themselves for drinks and/or money, this is suggestive that she was so occupied, at least occasionally. This is not definate proof, mind you, but combined with what CMD has already posted, a common conclusion is suggested.
- Jeff |
Author: Ashleah Skinner
Thursday, 08 August 2002 - 02:48 pm | |
| Thanks i got the Matrtin Fido interview its rally interesting. Is it possible for UK citizens to apply for Ripper Notes |
Author: brad mcginnis
Thursday, 08 August 2002 - 11:36 pm | |
| Yes Ashleah, you can provided your passport and papers are in order and you pass a drug screening. |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 05:52 pm | |
Since this is the Catharine Eddowes thread I am going to post this here....in the "Diary of Jack the Ripper, there is a chart in the front giving details of the canonical victims, and there is the usual picture of each one's face....however...I don't think I've seen this pic of Catharine before! Its from another angle. I suppose this could be the usual face close up and just backwards, but it really doesn't look like the same picture. Does anyone else think this is another picture?
I am working on a picture of Catharine as she may have looked alive and happy....I find I keep returning to this picture more than the others to help.
I am so pleased with how the picture is turning out, I may finish the pencil part, post it here on the site, and then paint it!
Love,
Lita |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 05:21 am | |
G'day Lita,
Check this out!
http://www.accomodata.co.uk/jack.htm
Leanne! |
Author: P. Ingerson
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 11:00 am | |
Hi, all.
I know this is a *really* stupid question, but...
How do we know that the "Mary Ann Kelly" who was arrested for drunkenly pretending to be a fire engine was really Catherine Eddowes? Did one (or more) of the policemen involved in her arrest formally identify the body after her death? Or is it all speculation?
Thanks.
Pi. |
Author: R Court
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 08:59 am | |
Hi Pi,
There are no stupid questions, just silly answers.
Kate Eddowes let herself be commonly known as Kelly after her companion John Kelly. I suspect that it was not her first 'visit' to such establishments for the same reasons either.
It was almost certainly her who got her collar felt for being drunk that day. I think we can be certain that she was correctly identified as being the same person who was later murdered and as she was positively identified by a number of reliable witnesses after her death, there seems little room for mistake.
A fair picture of how Kate may have looked is IMHO the one in the morturary where she has been stood against the wall in full RM. Poor girl. Not only butchered by Jack but roaring stark naked for all posterity in glaring public.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: R Court
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 09:07 am | |
Hi Leanne,
I checked out that link but I don't think that the victim sketches help very much, evidently being not facial portraits. Kelly is supposed to have carried her hair long, Eddowes looks considerably different in available photos and the others cannot be said to be perfect repros.
Not to insult the artist(s), though. I assume they(s/he) did not have access to the bodies and Kelly at least was so mutilated, a pre-mutilation sketch there would have been impossible anyway.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 01:03 pm | |
Brenda - There are four Eddowes photographs; one of her lying in the shell at Golden Lane Mortuary prior to the post-mortem, one close-up of her face, one three-quarter length frontal and one full frontal (these last three done after her autopsy, as the post-mortem stitching can clearly be seen in each). My memory is rather spotty these days, but I believe the only extant Ripper book to have printed all four photographs is Donald Rumbelow's Complete Casebook. The forthcoming News From Whitechapel will, I know, also have the four photographs in its pages.
Ashleah - I'm glad you enjoyed the Fido interview. Yes, you may subscribe to RN. I am not sure if our PayPal link is still operative (perhaps co-editor Chris George can correct me), but if not, you can write a cheque for a year's subscription (four issues). We have, unfortunately, been compelled to raise our rates, and so a year's sub is $30 (about 20 pounds, I believe). Let me know if you wish to subscribe, and I'll forward you the details on how to do so.
Pi - one of the policemen on duty at Bishopsgate Street Station (PC George Hutt, I believe, though cannot remember at the moment) also testified at the second session of Eddowes' inquest that the body he had seen was that of the "Mary Ann Kelly" or "Nothing" (both aliases she gave) who had been brought in as drunk and disorderly. So we can fairly well presume that Mary Ann Kelly, drunken fire-engine impersonator, was also Catherine Eddowes, late of Wolverhampton.
CMD |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 01:04 pm | |
I had heard before that particular drawing of Catharine Eddowes was done from a photograph of her (alive) that once existed. I think I read that here in the archives somewhere, but I can't verify it as being truth. To me, though, there is a marked difference between that sketch and the mortuary photographs...though one isn't particularly feeling their most photogenic in a mortuary photograph.
One thing I've noticed from the Ripper victim's mortuary photographs is that I have trouble ascertaining the victims' hair color. To me, Polly Nichols looks almost blond. Mary Kelly almost looks like red hair, but she is portrayed in those sketches as being dark haired.
Elizabeth Stride reminds me of the actress Cloris Leachman for some reason.
And poor Annie Chapman, she just looks awful. Her poor face is so swollen, its hard to determine exactly what she may have looked like. Any pictures drawn of her, in my humble opinion, should subtract at least 2+ of swelling. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 01:14 pm | |
Hi, Brenda
Just a quick fyi, which you may already know about--Neal Shelden uncovered a photo of a young Annie Chapman; it appears in a publication he put out (sorry, I've forgotten the title, and I don't know if it's still available). He sometimes posts here, and I believe is searching for portraits taken of the other victims from life.
Cheers,
Dave
The title is "Annie Chapman, Jack the Ripper Victim: A Short Biography." I haven't seen the photograph; I remember reading he had to remove it from his website due to objections from Chapman family members. |
Author: P. Ingerson
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 01:24 pm | |
Hi Bob & CMD,
Thanks for your answers.
Pi. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 04:03 pm | |
Hi all,
I just wanted to say that the reason I took the photograph of Annie Chapman off the website I had at the time was solely due to one reason. I actually hadn't told Annie's family that I was putting it on the net temporarily, because I thought it would be good for people to see the photograph in its true colour, but thought the family might object.
There are Annie booklets available still in two Crime book shops in London, but if people just wish to see the photograph of Annie there are two websites where it can be seen which are 'WEBSHOTS' and also 'FINDAGRAVE'.
I haven't put the photographs on Casebook yet as I was asked by authors to donate them for books about to come out, so they might be annoyed if I go and put them on the site at the moment!
But if they don't then I'd be happy too.
Some months ago I was able to find two names of Great Grandchildren of Catherine Eddowes and believe that their Grandchildren should be alive today. I have not gone any further with that research yet, and may not for some time. Even if I do there is of course no guarantee of finding a picture of Kate when she was alive?
With Annie Chapman I might just have got lucky?
All the best.
Neal Shelden |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 03:40 am | |
G'day Bob,
I have no idea who the artist is, and no idea where they got their inspiration from.
There is a pre-mutilation sketch of Mary Kelly you know. I am looking at a contemporary cartoon of her at the door of her room. This may be purely out of the artists imagination, he may have drew her from his own memory, or seen her in someone elses photograph. This cartoon is in the book 'The Ultimate Companion',and I'm sure I've seen it in other books.
You're right, she was said to wear her hair long, and I remember reading somewhere that she never wore hats....I think. She's wearing one in the cartoon.
LEANNE |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 03:55 am | |
G'day Bob,
I just checked, and the sketches in the link above of Elizabeth Stride and the one of Annie Chapman are the same as the contemporary ones here taken from the 'Illustrated Police News'.
The others look to be from the same artist, so perhaps they were all taken from the same source.
If so, I'd trust them!
LEANNE |
Author: R Court
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 04:40 am | |
Hi Leanne,
We only need to compare the sketches to the mortuary photos (except Kelly, of course..Ugh.) to get an idea of the poetic licence exhibited by the artist. If, as you say and are almost certainly right, they were all done by the same artist then it is very unlikely that he knew all the victims before their murders. It is also not to suppose that he was allowed into the mortuary to sketch each one.
Of course, the sketches are considerably better than nothing but I don't feel that they can be strict accurate record, I don't suppose the artist intended them to be so.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 07:02 am | |
Many thanks to Neal Shelden for the Annie Chapman photograph links. I can only imagine what he went through to find this. Wow. I feel much better that Ms. Long was able to "definately" identify Annie as standing with a gentleman outside Hanbury Street, because this woman had a one of a kind face. She has the hardest eyes I think I've ever seen. Who knows what kinds of things those eyes had seen in life? Also, it looks like there is some swelling in her left jaw. Deformity? Dental work? Chewing tobacco?
Photographs are truly priceless items. It breaks my heart to see old ones in flea markets...that was someone's mom or dad or child...lost forever. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 01:55 pm | |
Hi Brenda,
Just to answer your query, Annie's Great Granddaughter said that the original photograph looks like a lump on her jaw, but I believe it's just a mark on the picture?? And I agree that she did have a hard stare that was also depicted on the IPN drawings.
I also agree that it is sad to see old photographs on market stalls. I've often seen 20-30 for sale on market stalls in Covent Garden. Who knows what history has been lost this way? And if Kate Eddowes descendants were not told about there famous ancestor, her photograph might well have ended up in a market somewhere??
All the best.
Neal Shelden. |
Author: Ashleah Skinner
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 09:07 pm | |
| Christopher i do want to subscribe but first i need the details all checked out first. would it at all be possible to send the money as US Dollars obviously RN is American and it would be appropiate to pay accordingly...... |
Author: Garry Wroe
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 09:47 pm | |
Hello Neal.
My friend was the best man at the wedding of one of the Eddowes descendants you mentioned in an earlier posting. This lady practises Law, so I suppose you could say that soliciting is in the Eddowes blood. But since she very rarely speaks about her connection to Kate and has no wish for Ripper-related publicity, I hope that you will understand why I can provide no further details.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 02:18 pm | |
It's been written that they pawned Kelly's boots the morning of Saturday, the 29th, yet the pawn ticket is dated Friday the 28th. John Kelly seems to be honestly confused and also admits to drinking while Kate pawned the boots. According to testimony then, the boots were pawned no later than three or four o'clock the afternoon of the 28th, because that's when John Kelly says he and Kate parted.
How does the timing of the visit to the pawnshop affect the couple's movements the 28th/29th? Kelly made 6 d working. They got another 2s 6d from the boots. So on Friday they had 2s 12d, but behaved as if they only had Kelly's 6, splitting it into 4 and 2. This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Selling the boots on Saturday morning makes their finances easier to follow, but there's the ticket date.
Is the date on the ticket an error? Philip Sugden writes that the boots were sold on Saturday. The Viper also posted the Sept. 29th date back in April in a helpful post about casual wards. I know both of them have read the inquest report many times more than I have. So what don't I know about?
Thanks,
Dave |
Author: Neal Shelden
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 04:23 pm | |
Hi Garry,
No worries about the Eddowes lady that you mention in your post. I am really only interested in the descendants of Kate and her common law husband Thomas Conway.
My bet is that if anyone had a photograph of Kate it would be her daughter Annie who married a man named Phillips. I have found Annie's Grandchildren but am still about two generations away from a relative to contact.
I am a bit dubious as to whether I should go ahead with searching for a Kate Eddowes descendant because of the consequences for them.
Annie Chapman's family made it clear that one condition of use of the pictures was that they would remain anonymous. Unfortunately, after I sought some publicity in newspapers like the East London Advertiser for my find, a news agency got in touch with me after seeing the article and said they could get the Daily Mail interested for a story. I made it clear to them that the family did not wish to speak to them but that they could have the story. Within a week of getting their reassurance that the agency would not pursue the family they were knocking on their door asking if they were related to the Jack the Ripper victim Annie Chapman.
Luckily, I'd already warned the family that they could easily be traced, and Annie Chapman's Great Granddaughter prevented the reporter from getting what he wanted. So I'm sure that everyone can understand why I'm now reluctant to put the Eddowes descendants through anything like that.
All the best.
Neal Shelden. |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Tuesday, 13 August 2002 - 11:52 pm | |
I am curious as to why the victims' descendants would be shy about it. Is it an aversion to publicity in general or some sort of shame because of the victims' lifestyle or what? I think an opportunity to see a photograph or hear some handed-down story would be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I'm sure they have their reasons and they are very good ones.
How wonderful to find out a descendant of Kate is alive, well, and presumably prospering! Thanks for telling that tidbit of information, Garry. Maybe one day she will find it in herself to come forward if she has anything to share. I'm sure there are ways she could do it anonymously if need be.
To Neal Shelden: regarding Annie Chapman's photograph again, I wonder if the jaw lump might be for real and might be some sort of dental work? I say this because her left eye looks almost like a black eye. That could just be a shadow, though. It reminds me of when I had my wisdom teeth pulled...my jaw swelled and I got black eyes too. What an unfortunate time to get a photograph made.
Speaking of photographs, in 1888 and before, was getting a photograph done a big deal? Was it expensive? Did portrait studios do a booming business? |
Author: Dan Norder
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 12:40 am | |
Brenda,
I can't speak for the victim's descendants, but if I were in their shoes I might want to keep it secret just out of fear. Jack the Ripper has been mythologized into kind of the patron saint of killers, and some warped personality might decide to turn psychokiller and try to "finish the job."
Plus it's kind of morbid, and any kids in the family would be teased at school, both for the sexual offenses of the ancestor and the link to Jack.
I don't know. I can also see myself announcing it to try to get some publicity for a project or something like that. It's really up to the individual.
I do think we should honor their wishes as much as possible, though.
Dan |
Author: Garry Wroe
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 01:17 am | |
Hi Neal.
I realize that it seems strange, but my understanding of the situation is that the lady concerned is directly descended from Kate. I'll be seeing my mate in the next few days so will try to get some clarification.
Hi Brenda.
Having never met the lady in question, I honestly don't know why she distances herself from the Ripper case. But she is definitely doing well for herself and, by all accounts, is a very nice person.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 07:19 am | |
Hi Brenda,
This from (Henry) Mayhew's London (circa 1851):
Within the last few years photographic portraits have gradually been diminishing in price, until at the present time they have become a regular article of street commerce.
In the eastern and southern districts of London, such as in Bermondsey, the New-cut, and the Whitechapel-road, one cannot walk fifty yards without passing some photographic establishment, where for sixpence persons can have their portrait taken, and framed and glazed as well.
My great grandfather, Alfred Henry Bool, and his brother John, began as portrait painters, then took up photography, opening their own studio in Pimlico in the late 1860s. In the 1870s they branched out from portrait photography and were commissioned by the Society for Photographing Relics of Old London to take photos of endangered buildings, such as the historic Oxford Arms Tavern in Warwick Lane, which was threatened with demolition. I wish I had some more examples of their work – I only have a few family photos with studio details on the reverse.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Neal Shelden
Wednesday, 14 August 2002 - 07:35 am | |
Brenda,
I feel the same way as you do. I would be fascinated to find a Ripper victim in my family. Can I just say that she said she wanted to protect her mother (the last of Annie Chapman's Granddaughter's) who is of a grand old age, but I also felt that she was definately not the publicity type herself.
As I've mentioned on previous posts the Great Granddaughter has been on a Ripper walk since I told her of her famous ancestor and bought books on the subject, so she does have an interest. When I told her who her Great Grandmother was she took it very well.
The reason there could be a lump on Annie's face could be down to the teeth that were missing by 1888, but I'm just of the opinion it's a photographic mark because a line that meets her face on that side and many other marks on the picture. But of course I can't be certain either way??
Garry,
The reason that I say that I don't think the Eddowes lady can be Kate's direct descendant is due to the fact that her children were Conway's. But I'll be interested if you can find out for sure. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 01:45 am | |
Is the cause of death known for Catherine Eddowes' parents?
And does anyone know what the curriculum would have been like at her school, or any other school of the period? Would she have had a classical education? Would she have learned a little latin? Shakespeare?
Thank you,
Dave |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 02:27 am | |
Hi Dave,
Catherine's mother died of 'phthisis' (tuberculoscis of the lungs) on November 17th, 1855; her father, George, died in 1857 I believe. I do not know what he died of. Perhaps Neal Shelden can help out.
Eddowes attended school before the Education act became law, so it is difficult to say what sort of education she received. Post-1870, she would have most certainly taken Latin, and studied great English writers. Even G.R. Sims mentions this aspect in 'How The Poor Live.' Even the poorest of children received some classical education. By the way Eddowes attended Dowgate Charity School (City of London).
Cheers,
John |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Monday, 19 August 2002 - 10:57 am | |
John,
Many thanks for the reply and the information--it's always appreciated.
Best,
Dave |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 29 August 2002 - 09:49 am | |
Hello,
Is anyone aware of the crime for which Christopher Robinson was hanged? Is anything else known about him generally?
Regards,
Dave |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Thursday, 29 August 2002 - 12:05 pm | |
David,
He was hanged at Stafford on the 9th January 1866 for murder committed in Wolverhampton. He was 18 years old. Some sources quote his first name as being Charles.
Hope this little helps you
Jim |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 29 August 2002 - 12:27 pm | |
Jim,
It does help, many thanks for your response.
Regards,
Dave |
Author: Neal Shelden
Thursday, 29 August 2002 - 01:25 pm | |
I've just noticed the question about Catherine Eddowes parents.
Jack is right about the cause of death for Kate's mother, but the husband George Eddowes is a mystery. The daughters said that he died two years after their mother and also note that the younger Eddowes children where recorded as orphans in the Bermondsey Workhouse and Industrial School records for 1857.
For some reason the death entry for George Eddowes could not be found at the General Registrar Office (now FRC). I definately believe that he died that year, but the entry must have been lost? |
Author: stephen miller
Thursday, 29 August 2002 - 03:48 pm | |
Hi Neal as you will probably know some of the entries in Births Marriages and Deaths at GRO have been indexed wrongly and so therefore lost in the middle of countless entries
I have come across the same problem in my family history
all the best
steve |
Author: Neal Shelden
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 07:05 am | |
Hi Steve,
Yes, I think there have been quite a lot go astray, as I never found George Smith's death entry (Annie Chapman's father), or Caroline Walker's death entry (Mary Ann Nichols mother). And like yourself some family history ones.
All the best.
Neal. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 30 August 2002 - 01:57 pm | |
Neal -
I've been very remiss in addressing your post of a while back concerning the Chapman photograph. I certainly have no objection to your posting it on the site if you wish (after all, were it not for your kind efforts, The News From Whitechapel wouldn't have the photo at all!), and I am sure my co-authors Alex Chisholm and Dave Yost would have no objections either. So please do what you see fit.
Rather a shame that, about the Chapman descendant being traced down. It just goes to show (as though we needed proof) that anything having to do with the Ripper is news. So perhaps Eddowes' charming descendant should stay anonymous. |
