|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
WAS STRIDE WAITING FOR SOMEONE
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Elizabeth Stride:
WAS STRIDE WAITING FOR SOMEONE
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 02:53 pm |        | | Highly unlikely. But even if a senior police officer (Cutbush?) was called at his home, why would it be to announce that Eddowes had just been released? Was an officer at the BPS also involved in the plot to silence Eddowes? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 03:18 pm | | There is no reason to believe that Eddowes was not similar to the other victims and was a casual prostitute. In other words if she needed the money and there was no other way to raise it, she would turn to this method of earning. Indeed, one of the reasons Conway gave for leaving her was her 'immoral habits'. Obviously Kelly thought a lot of her and would not be ready to admit that she did this, or that he allowed her to do so. Similarly, Wilkinson, as the deputy of a lodging house, would not be willing to admit that prostitutes lodged there.
The patrolling police officers in 1888 operated on the fixed beat system, and patrolled a pre-set route, arriving at the start/finish point every 15 or 30 minutes. This route would ensure that the officer covered every property on his beat. These beats would never overlap, so that when Harvey went down Church Passage he would stop at the end turn around and come back out, leaving the checking of Mitre Square to Watkins, on whose beat the Square fell. Thus there would be no onus upon Harvey to even look into Mitre Square, let alone enter it, as it was soley Watkins' responsibility.
The officers patrolling the beats would be subject to supervisory rendezvous points with the patrol sergeant, who would often make spot checks to ensure they were patrolling properly, or would meet them at a pre-arranged point. As they were on a fixed beat, the sergeant would know exactly where he could expect to find them. To not check their beats properly was a serious disciplinary offence (neglect of duty) for which they could be dismissed. So, it is unlikely that they would not check their beats properly. Until 1.00 a.m. there were also Pc's at fixed points where they stood so that the public knew where to find a policeman. |
Author: Chris Phillips
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 03:58 pm | | On constables taking a break from their beats, I assume that something like this is implied by the fact that PC Neil is stated to have called for his cape at the slaughterhouse in Winthrop Street after the Nichols murder.
On whether Eddowes was a prostitute, I've just been reading Cullen's book, and he quotes Major Smith as saying, "The 'beat' of Catharine Eddowes was a small one ... She was known to a good many of the constables ..." I don't remember having seen this before, and the source isn't stated, but it implies she was a known prostitute, and apparently one with a City 'beat'. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 04:34 pm | | Yes Scott,
highly unlikely from that view, but I did mean from the other view. The senior officer calls BPS and asks 'what's going on with that drunken women you arrested outside my nephew's lodging making a nuisance of herself?'
'Sorry, sir, we released her a few minutes ago.'
'Right ho, I'll send me nephew out to kill her.'
Joke. But you know what I mean.
Just testing the water here. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 04:46 pm | | Stewart
I agree with you, Eddowes was probably a casual prostitute, most women in that hell hole of Whitechapel were probably part time purveyors for the simple reason of getting a bed or a meal.
And I think you have touched on a crucial point of witness testimony, that people who could be shown to be living on the immoral and illegal activities of prostitutes could face a more severe penalty from the courts than the prostitutes themselves. This is as true today as it was then.
Thank you for the info, about the activities of the patrolling PC's. I will study this at length. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 04:52 pm | | Chris,
that reference had escaped me so I will check it.
Thank you. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 05:45 pm | | Chris, Stewart, A.P.
I'll keep this short, because I don't want to deflect away from Liz Stride, but I believe the inconsistency in John Kelly's testimony about the date his boots were pawned tells us something about how casual a prostitute Kate might have been. There was a brief discussion on one of 'Cathrine Eddowes' thread last summer.
Best,
Dave |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 05:46 pm | | A.P.,
With regard to the 'low class hotel' you say you remember referenced in the area of '29' Aldgate High Street; two doors away there was the "Bull Inn", managed by Samuel East, Jr. from 1888-89. After 1889, it was abandoned and fell into dis-repair. I don't know if this premise was a pub, a hotel, or both, but East Jr. also managed the Three Nuns Hotel next to the Aldgate Railway Station, a few doors away and another pub called the "Essex" at the corner of AHS and Middlesex St. Other than these premises, there are no likely candidates for a low class hotel unless the large tobacco warehouse of Adkin & Sons at no. 31 was partly modified to accommodate poor lodgers. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 05:49 pm | | Stewart, I wouldn't contradict your statement on a policemans neglect of duty by not covering all his recognised patrol. I think a young trainee policeman would cover all of his beat because fear of superior reprisal would make him cover every inch,--just in case, but an old hand copper would KNOW what he could get away with. There is also the fact that P.C. Harvey was dismissed for unknown reasons in July 1889.
Rick
P.S. when I was in the army and doing a guard duty, I certainly knew what I could get away with and what was really taboo!! |
Author: Robin
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 06:58 pm | | Hello Warwick and AP,
Isn't it pleasing (and comfortably reassuring) when you discover that others are thinking along the same lines as yourself - especially when it concerns such a contentious issue as the Ripper case.
Evening Stewart,
Thanks for the information on police beats in 1888. It’s all grist to the mill, as the saying goes.
However, I would argue that despite all the strict rules and regulations of the day and their attendant risks of dismissal, the possibility that Watkins only made a cursory check (if any) of Mitre Square at 1:30am remains.
I’d like to elaborate on this but the hour is late and my lovely wife is hovering at my left shoulder reminding me that we are off on holiday to Devon tomorrow and I have still to even start packing.
Assuming my dear spouse manages to resist the temptation to drag me out into the depths of Dartmoor (Hound of the Baskervilles country) and leave me there, I’ll continue with this in a week or so. Bet you can’t wait . . .
Regards to all, and thanks for the responses to my post.
Robin |
Author: Robin
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 07:13 pm | | Hello Warwick,
I've just this minute seen your 5:49pm post. Great minds think alike!
To all,
Forgot to mention just now that I've been given some copies of Met. Police Office 'Police Orders' 1869-1892 that mention (amongst many other things) some of Abberline's commendations. I noticed there are also a few entries about officer dismissals. Could prove interesting. More when I return from my hol.
Robin |
Author: Robin
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 07:26 pm | | Hello Warwick,
I've just this minute seen your 5:49pm post. Great minds think alike!
To all,
Forgot to mention just now that I've been given some copies of Met. Police Office 'Police Orders' 1869-1892 that mention (amongst many other things) some of Abberline's commendations. I noticed there are also a few entries about officer dismissals. More when I return from my hol.
Oops! Just noticed the heading of this thread. It's meant to be about whether Liz was waiting for someone (which, incidentally, I think she was). Apologies for the diversion.
I think a wife-propelled suitcase is about to hurtle in my direction. Really must go.
Robin |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 03:13 am | | Just to add to the above re- Pc's and their beats. Yes, they would probably have 'tea stops' on their beats but they would be very wary about how they used them and would be careful to avoid getting caught. Unless, of course, the patrol sergeant was using them as well. It was an accepted norm when walking the beat to leave a heavy cape or overcoat with a night watchman or other trusted night worker if the weather was favourable and the cape or coat was not required. They would then pick it up later before leaving off.
Often when there was a quiet period or not much happening on a beat the surpervision may have been more lax. However, at a time of high vigilance, such as this was, it would have been pretty strict and officers would have been expected to be especially diligent. Of course, you always get less diligent officers, but at a time like this they would have been very careful. But the dismissals were often for neglect of duty (or drunkenness) and there was a long article in the papers of the time about the strict police rules and how an officer would probably lie about checking his beat properly (if he hadn't done so) in order to avoid this discipline.
I remember when I joined the police force in 1969 walking the fixed beat system on nights, many police procedures in the 1960's had altered little from Victorian times, and the legislation I arrested drunks under was passed in 1861 and would have been the same Act Eddowes had been arrested under in 1888! It was bit of a game during the long night hours to try and spot the patrol sergeant looking for you before he spotted you. I would often leave my overcoat with the night watchman at the dock gates if it was a warm night. If there was a burglary on your beat during the night and you did not find it (if it was obvious) you were in trouble the next day, having to explain why the burglary had not been found.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 03:25 am | | I would suggest that it might be best to accept that the patrolling officers,at least during the Ripper scare,would be more inclined to take their patrol duties seriously.This would be due in part to the pressure from higher authority,and the personel glory that would come if they were responsible for the killers arrest.
Rick is correct in his assessment of patrol officers generaly,whether military or law enforcement,especially in times of routine,low risk conditions.They will stretch the rules to suit their frame of mind,and if there is the added attraction of some small gain,like a drink or relaxation,so much the better.
Whether old time officers were,as a whole,more concious driven,is debateable.I talk of modern conditions,using modern means.
My experience is of both military and law enforcement practices,having served in both. |
Author: Billy Markland
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 03:32 am | | Stewart, if I may be so bold; your recalling of walking the "beat" is one of the best posts regarding police methodology I have read.
Would you please, when you are finished with your current work, elaborate more? If, as you stated, the procedures had not changed that much, maybe it is time to get it on paper.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: Chris Phillips
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 04:21 am | | One more point on whether Eddowes was a prostitute. In the Times report of the first day of the inquest, printed by Evans and Skinner (p. 216), Kelly appears to let this slip.
After saying "He did not know that she ever went out for immoral purposes; he had never allowed her to do so", he went on to add, "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". [my emphasis]
Whereupon Mr Crawford [the City Solicitor] pointed out, "You were asked before if she walked the streets, and you said she did not", and Kelly responded, "Sometimes we were without money to pay for our lodging, and we were at the time I speak of".
But of course, Kelly was not having to "walk the streets", in the sense of having nowhere to lay his head. In his evidence he also recalled telling Eddowes that "'Fred' - the deputy of the lodging-house - would not turn them away if they had no money" [p. 217], the lodging house keeper, Frederick Wilkinson, described Eddowes and Kelly as "pretty regular in paying" [p. 218], which seems to confirm that he didn't demand payment in advance.
In fact, the evidence about Friday night, when Eddowes absented herself, claiming she would leave Kelly in the lodging house and go to the casual ward in Mile End, makes it a bit unclear how far we can trust Kelly's claim that he never allowed her to "walk the streets". She went despite his argument that Fred would not turn them away for lack of money, and the rest of the evidence suggests some doubt as to whether she really went to the casual ward:
He saw her the next morning about 8 o'clock, as well as he could remember, and was surprised to see her so soon ... she told him that there had been some bother in the casual ward, and that was why she had been turned out so soon. He did not know the regulations of the casual ward at Mile-end, and whether she could discharge herself when she liked." |
Author: AP. Wolf
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 04:50 am | | I'm enjoying all these posts, some very useful and important info coming out, especially regarding the practical and 'human' aspects of policing, and evidence given by people who may have a vested interest in what they do or do not say. I have always felt that one should take inquest testimony where it concerns character of witnesses and or victims with a pinch of salt. It is human nature to believe good of the dead, especially when that person was horribly murdered, and it is also human nature to paint oneself in a good light.
I am still interested to know how widely used the telephone was by the police in 1888?
As a new boy here I'm afraid I don't know the etiquette about keeping to threads, but I would have thought it quite natural for one thread to develop into another during the course of its life?
Sorry if I have broken the etiquette.
Chris, I think your last post does confirm that Eddowes was at least a part time 'unfortunate'. |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 07:46 am | | This has turned out to be a stimulating and rewarding thread, despite wandering off-topic.
I’ve never really gone along with the idea that PC Watkins was not doing his job properly at 1:30, because there isn’t any good reason to think it. But even supposing that he did just give Mitre Square a cursory glance, rather than pacing a proper circuit, there’d have been nothing much for him to see anyway, given that the Imperial Club witnesses didn’t see a man with a woman (who was almost certainly Eddowes) until around 1:33 by the Duke Street entrance to Church Passage. Similarly there’s no reason to place Watkins at Kearley and Tonge’s warehouse drinking tea with the nightwatchman, as some commentators have suggested in the past.
Whilst it is true that PC Harvey was not responsible for patrolling Mitre Square, he had to trudge up and down Church Passage anyway, so it seems reasonable that if he was at all diligent he’d peer through the gloom into the square and take some appropriate action if he saw a crime being committed, or suspected that one was about to be committed?
The issue of how thoroughly the beat police constable did his job is an interesting one. Rick’s comparison about guard duty in the army is good (I’ve heard a number of similar stories from my father’s generation of National Servicemen) – namely that in a tightly disciplined environment the experienced practitioner will know what he can and can’t get away with and often act accordingly. At Buck's Row the policemen did seem to have difficulty in accounting for their time, PC Thain in particular. One is left with the distinct impression that he and his colleagues were engaged in a bit of mutual covering up. However, by the end of September the situation was rather different, it being a time of heightened vigilance as Stewart points out in his second contribution. The patrolling sergeant was a reality as we see with the Castle Alley murder in 1889 with the presence of Sergeant Badham. Perhaps it might be stated positively here that the sergeant wasn’t only a hazard to be avoided. For the rookie officer dealing with a serious incident such as the finding of a dead body, the close proximity of experienced assistance must have been greatly reassuring.
As to the question of whether Kate Eddowes was or was not a prostitute, it’s one of those old chestnuts that rears its head regularly on the boards. On a number of occasions the report of 27th October 1888 by Inspector McWilliam has been quoted on this matter, but some people are still unconvinced for some reason. “She [Eddowes] had lived with Kelly for seven or eight years, prior to which 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.” Last time round this finished up with a debate as to whether the word ‘immoral’ meant that she was a thief or some other kind of petty criminal, but the use of that word in Victorian days was normally tied to sexual immorality. Like hundreds of other poor women in the East End, Kate was a part time prostitute when she needed the money. Neither John Kelly nor Fred Wilkinson would have admitted it for the reasons described by Stewart above, though Kelly almost let the cat out of the bag, as Chris Phillips has spotted.
Concerning this hotel business, further up the thread: 29 Aldgate High Street (by then all part of no. 28) was not a hotel, it was a warehouse. I think the idea that it was a hotel stems from an erroneous contribution posted here a few years ago. The author had confused 29 Aldgate (where there was a hotel of sorts) with 29 Aldgate High Street, but they are entirely different addresses. As to whether anybody lived above the warehouse at 28-29 AHS, the best clue may be contained in the 1881 and 1891 census returns. I’ve certainly never checked these to see whether there was anybody dwelling there, but has anybody else?
On use of the telephone, from memory the vast majority of police stations were not connected to it in 1888, and certainly none in the East End were. They did make use of communication by telegraph wire, I believe.
Regards, V. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 10:44 am | | Agreed. My only comments would be that firstly at Eddowes' inquest the witness statements and the jury reaction to the answers regarding Morris the watchmen and PC Watkins do convey the idea that perhaps all was not being said truthfully, the jury were obviously surprised that the watchmen would leave his door open at that time in the morning, and questioned him as to how long it had been open, to which he replied 'two or three minutes...'. He also said the door was 'slightly' on the jar. I am always suspicious of over-emphasis in circumstances like these and his use of the word 'slightly' is just that. Either the door was open or it was closed. Unlike you I feel that the two may have been drinking tea together.
I can't agree that 28 & 29 Aldgate High Street were a warehouse, a furniture shop yes, but not a warehouse. Check the statement of the arresting officer Robinson where he says 'I picked her up and carried her to the side by the shutters...'
Shops have shutters, warehouses do not.
I have found a couple of references to very senior police officials using the telephone at the time but yes most communication seems to be in telegraphic form. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 01:59 pm | | I think that in the main the patrolling officers did take their beats seriously, especially during the scare. Certainly they would have had 'tea stops' and places to warm up on a bitterly cold night but they would still have to cover the length of their patrol for every circuit.
So by speeding up his 'regulation' walking pace, Watkins could complete the beat say in ten minutes instead of fifteen and have time to have a cup of tea with Morris. However, I would suggest that had he done so, he would probably have entered the Square (from Mitre Street) whilst the killer was a work and have thus caught him literally red-handed. Indeed, this shows the risks the killer took. But if he had any knowledge of the beat system at all (which was easily gained by observation) he would have known of the approximate ten minute window of safety available to him. Don Rumbelow told me years ago that he had long suspected that Watkins may have been enjoying a cup of tea with Morris when the murder was committed, but I don't think so; for the reason given above. It would have been more likely that Watkins would have entered the Square and checked it before going in to see Morris, whose open door was on the east side of the Square, opposite the entrance from Mitre Street. On resuming his beat Watkins would have exited the way he came in. However, Morris probably had left the door open for Watkins who immediately went there on finding the body.
As far as conscientiousness is concerned, the younger officers would probably have been more so than the 'old sweats' who had been on the beat many years and knew all the tricks and wrinkles. However, it is very much an individual thing, and some people are very often more conscientious than others when it's in their nature to be so.
Re- Eddowes, I think there is no doubt that she was a casual prostitute and the mere fact that she was in such a location (an area known to be frequented by streetwalkers) at such an hour of the night indicates this fact. I was never one for conspiracies and secret assignations and in my opinion this was a random, opportunistic murder. But I know that it's fun to speculate and weave hypotheses so those who wish to are perfectly entitled to do so. You'll never prove anything either way.
As regards Pc Harvey, of course he would have done something if he had seen or heard anything suspicious in Mitre Square while he was in Church Passage. Any policeman would. But he would not have specifically checked the Square at all as it was not his responsibility. There is no evidence to suggest that he stood at the entrance to the Square, as some books have suggested. In Harvey's own words:-
"At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square. I saw no one. I heard no cry or noise."
Obviously Harvey would have turned around at the end of the alley without entering the Square. When I photographed Church Passage in August 1967 it was still the same size and layout as it was in 1888, and so I gained a very good idea of the physical features of the police beats. As Viper suggests he may well have looked into the gloom of the Square, but it would have been nothing more than a cursory glance as he turned around, and he would have known that Watkins would have been checking the Square within the next 5 minutes (which indeed he was). I would suggest that the killer had already completed his work on Eddowes when Harvey walked down Church Passage, and the killer may well have heard him approaching and fled. The most likely route out of Mitre Square, for the killer, would have been through St. James's Passage and St. James's Place, right in King Street and away across Houndsditch, heading east. |
Author: richard nunweek
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 04:27 pm | | Hi, Everyone.
I am glad I started this thread , there has been some good conversation on this , even if it has somewhat veered away from the original heading.
I am not suggesting that Eddowes was never a casual streetwalker, for although she may have used that profession on occasions , it appears that at the time of her death she was not in the habit of soliciting.
Remember she was very much aware of the dangers that being out on the streets at night could bring , and therefore to accompany a man into the secluded square in the early hours , would be pure madness on her behalf.
Regarding the use of telephones in that area in 1888, i would consider that a no no. even if telegraphic form was used Eddowes would have left Bishopsgate station by the time notification of Strides murder was sent.
The trouble with the Ripper murders is there are so many for and against, which us folk can debate,
So who is right , and who is wrong?.
Regards Richard. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 04:54 pm | | Stewart,
refreshing and very exact summing up, but I must take issue with you about Eddowes. I too would always seek the simplest explanation and am very wary of conspiracies and the like, but and this is a big but, there is no doubt in my mind - and I think in a lot of other open-minded observers -that Eddowes had purpose behind her movements that night, she wasn't going to meet anyone, there was no conspiracy to murder her, instead she was making her way somewhere... not home that is for sure. If she had wanted to score a 'trick' she could have gone in any direction, but she chose to go back to the exact area where she had been arrested earlier. There is purpose in her movements.
I firmly believe that she was, in fact, the only one of the Ripper's victims who was not killed in an opportunistic manner. I believe she was making a nuisance of herself, and had genuine knowledge of the Ripper's identity.
And sorry, I still see the PC and night watchman having a cup of tea. I would have. |
Author: richard nunweek
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 05:03 pm | | Hi Wolf.
A short comment, she simply may have gone back to the area she had been arrested, because where she fell down when drunk earlier she was obviously heading for some destination , so that would be the obvious point to continue her journey.
Regards Richard. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 06:12 pm | | A.P.
Thanks for that. As far as explanations for the various actions and motivations of the victims etc. in 1888 are concerned, the simple answer, as I have indicated, is that we will never know for sure. Personally, I prefer the most logical, commonsense and simple answer. That is not to say that this will always be the correct answer. And this is the appeal of the case, every theorist is able to apply his own interpretation to the known facts and develop his own ideas. To my mind the only purpose Eddowes had was to try and raise some cash and she knew that there would still be clients around in that area. She had no money for a bed so it would have been pointless to return to the lodging house as she would have not been allowed in.
I am happy to concede that there would be every likelihood that Watkins would join Morris for a cup of tea. But in view of the known timing of his beat, and the location of the body and the warehouse, I feel it much more likely that Watkins would not have joined Morris, as I have already stated, until after he had checked the Square. Thus he found the body just before he would have gone for the cup of tea. As we know, he entered the Square from Mitre Street, and the warehouse where Morris was located was on the opposite side of the Square. Eddowes body was on the same side of the Square that he entered (to his right) thus making it more likely he would have found her before he reached the warehouse for his cup of tea. His beat route was to enter the Square from Mitre Street, check all around the Square then exit into Mitre Street again.
On the issue of telephones, they were not at all common in 1888 and the police stations were all equipped with telegraph machines. Indeed, we know from the contemporary reports that most messages were passed via this medium. The senior officers did not have telephones at home. When Anderson assumed duties as Assistant Commissioner on 1 September 1888 he had a telegraph machine fitted in his home for communication and the report setting out his pay and allowances [Ref- HO 65/62] shows that he received 45 pounds per year allowance "for working telegraph at home".
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Joan O'Liari
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 07:14 pm | | Thank you for your replies, Richard and Wolf,and others joining in. There is a connection between the double event victims, and it is hard to speak of one and not the other.I refer to statements made by both of the women's landlords;Elizabeth Tanner, who knew Liz for 6 years,was asked "Did you understand what she was doing?" Her reply was "She told me she worked among the Jews, and was living with a man in Fashion Street."(yet Michael Kidney gives his address as Dorset Street where they had set up house.)
Now Catherine's landlord Mr.Wilkinson, who knew her for about 7 or 8 years, stated,"Deceased got her living by hawking about the streets and cleaning amongst the Jews". This is a way in which both women had the opportunity to become acquainted with the same type of man, if not the same man. Remember this does not implicate a Jewish man as the killer, but it may be enough for a woman to be in the vicinity where she might get a bit of money with promise of doing some cleaning for them. As I said it would be good to be discreet, as it was likely a family man who had a comfortable arrangement.
Now as to the Club where Liz was, the printer William West, in his testimony stated that there had been some 90 or 100 people at the meeting, most of whom left by 12 by the street door , however there were still about 20 or 30 members remaining in the large room and a dozen downstairs. Liz may have been waiting for only a certain one that she knew. Likewise Catherine did have something in mind, her earlier companion may have mentioned going to the club on Duke Street later,and she had hoped to run into him, hence her questions to the jailor; What time is it? He says too late for you to get more drink and she probably thinks "Wanna Bet?" Catherine may not have been a prostitute by profession, but she most certainly had a problem with alcoholism.
Her own daughter whom she was supposed to be going to see didn't even want her around, and said that the addresses of herself and two brothers were purposely kept from her to prevent her applying to them for money.Catherine and her man Kelly had just returned from hopping with not a penny to show for it, so things were pretty desperate financially at that point.
Well all this talk about cuppas is making me thirsty so I better go have a brew and ponder some more on things. Cheers. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 01:32 am | | | Michael Kidney did not 'give his address' as Dorset Street, this was misreporting by the press. In an interview he stated that he had lived with Stride at 35 Devonshire Street 'down to five months ago' and then they had moved to number 36 in the same street. That they had lived in Devonshire Street and not Dorset Street is explained by Phil Sugden on page 195 of the paperback edition of his book. |
Author: richard nunweek
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:28 am | | Hi Joan,
Very intresting post regarding the Jewish connection, between these two women, there is a lot of evidence referring to the jews.
The graffiti, lipski, shabby genteel appearence, etc.
This is proberly ignorance on my part, but was their a jewish quarter in Whitechapel at that time or were they on every street?.
I have been following the series on tv called Mapping Murder, and wondered if there was a area of Whitechapel that had a heavily populated jewish presence that may give us a clue where a possible suspect may have resided.
Regards Richard. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:35 am | | Stewart,
sorry but I still remain convinced that Eddowes had a destination in mind that night, what you say makes eminent sense, but I don't follow you in regard that the area around Mitre Square would have been a useful spot to meet clients, surely even at that time of night there would have been busier areas where she could have easily met clients without dragging herself all that way?
Your point about the PC's entry route is also very pertinent, but one has to say that if we do accept that the PC and watchman did indeed have a tea party that night it must throw considerable doubt on the rest of their testimony.
As I do not have a copy of Sugden's book to hand would you mind explaining Kidney's supposed address? I have checked what sources I have here and they all give either 35 Dorset Street, or 38 Dorset Street, Spitalfields.
Joan, yes that struck me as well when I was reading through the inquest details, that both had worked 'cleaning for Jews', very tentative connection but nonetheless a connection.
However I still don't see Stride waiting for anyone that night, she seemed to be in company for the entire night and doing very well out of it until someone turned up to spoil their little party. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 06:04 am | | A.P.
As I said, you are free to speculate scenarios to your heart's content, this is the appeal of the case for theorists. You may 'remain convinced' of whatever you wish. That is your prerogative, and I merely give my opinion where it is asked for. You don't have to accept it.
The area adjacent to Mitre Square that was frequented by the 'unfortunates' was that around St. Botolph's Church, which includes Duke Street. She didn't have to 'drag herself all that way', it isn't very far. Also she was in that very area (Aldgate) the day before, so it was probably an area she found favourable to her own needs. But for those who want to read more into the uncorroborated newspaper report claiming that she had said she knew who the Whitechapel murderer was and that there was some cryptic significance in the location of her arrest - fine. One has to say that if she was making such a bold claim, and there was any likelihood it was true, then surely Kelly and others who knew her better would be aware of it. Significantly it gets no mention at the inquest and if she did say it, it was probably 'drink talking' and she was making empty boasts in an effort to impress people. To read more into it than that has to be nebulous speculation.
Many errors have been made in the reporting of this case, and they have been repeated in book after book. This mainly derives from a failure of the authors to use prime source material and a lack of in-depth research. Phil Sugden's book has been out for many years now and is the most accurate of the general history volumes on the murders. He has corrected many of the popular errors and you really should be using this book for general reference. The Kidney/Stride address mistake was one he corrected, as I said.
I have, as far as I know, the largest Ripper-related collection in the world, just about everything published, every book, copies of all the official records, etc., etc. But I do not rely solely on the books of others to base my own ideas on.
It is true of any historical mystery that the reported stories can be trawled through and any number of theories and hypotheses developed. It is the appeal of these mysteries. At the end of the day, however, you will be left with your own house of cards for others to attack and demolish.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 06:26 am | | Stewart,
funnily enough after replying to your note I went and trawled through my own collection of material and what did I find? A fine and well-thumbed copy of Sugden's book, revised paperback edition 1995. So, sorry about that.
In me humble defence I must say that Sugden's book came out a year after my own, by which time I had fled the scene... in complete and utter despair. And I do feel that my own work is of a totally different genre. Maybe not the enjoyable work horse that Sugden's book is, but that was never my intention, I guess it was my fairly scurrilious intention to throw a lot of rotten tomatoes at a lot of individuals who - I felt at the time - desperately deserved to be hit by such missiles. I was attempting to inject a little bit of modernism into a subject that had become so tarnished by legend and myth that it was in danger of becoming vastly boring, and at the same time the entire domain of a priviliged few.
The Jack world is very different now, sources and materials available at the click of a button etc, and an entire generation of new kids on the block, a situation which I am more than happy with and I stand fully prepared for these new kids on the block to knock down my house of cards, in fact I sincerely hope that I will be blown out of the water altogether by them and end up in some hedge with my reputation ripped to shreds... I enjoy that aspect of my work and am the first to admit the faults in that work.
But at that time the book was well received by many for the exact reasons I have outlined. It was never intended as source book, more like a 'sauce' book I reckon.
Now I am going away to study Sugden's book again and see if I can't chip some rust off my ageing hull.
I know one Ripper related book you don't have.
Thanks for your comments. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 06:40 am | | Stewart,
I must take issue with your statement on addresses (9/Feb/03 1:32am). That Michael Kidney had lived with Liz Stride at 35 and then 36 Devonshire Street is undeniable, both from his Central News agency interview and from the address given by Liz to the Swedish pastor when applying for alms in 1886.
But Catherine Lane, somebody who appears to have got much closer to Liz than most, stated at the inquest on 3rd October, "I have heard her say she was a foreign woman, and she told me that at one time she lived in Devonshire-street, Commercial-road." Note the past tense. In reply to an earlier question Lane had said, "During the time she was away she called at the lodginghouse, and I used frequently to see her in Fashion-street where she was living." In addition we have the testimony of Elizabeth Tanner, the lodging-house deputy, who stated, "She [Stride] told me she worked among the Jews, and was living with a man in Fashion-street." All the above text is quoted from The Times of October 4th, but we could equally have chosen the Daily Telegraph of the same date:-
[Mrs. Tanner] "…I am aware that she lived in Fashion-street, but not that she has ever resided at Poplar."
...and...
[Coroner to Lane] "Had you ever seen her before? - I have known her for six or seven months. I used to see her frequently in Fashion-street, where she lived, and I have seen her at our lodging-house."
An address in Fashion Street would tally well with Kidney's statement that he last saw Liz in Commercial Street. Some people, such as Tully (see pages 319-320 of his paperback edition), who have taken the couple's Devonshire St. address to be correct have raised eyebrows at his statement in the past, (Commercial Street being well to the north west of both Devonshire Street and Kidney’s work in the docks).
Regarding Kidney's address subsequent to the murder, both the Daily Telegraph and The Times of October 4th printed it as 38 Dorset Street when reporting his inquest testimony. The Daily News also gave Dorset Street, albeit a different number (35).
Philip Sugden cited 'misreporting' as the reason for the confusion about the final address where Kidney and Stride lived together, and where Kidney was living by the time of the inquest. In the face of all the evidence above I have to disagree with him.
Regards, V. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 07:57 am | | A.P.
Thanks for that, I have to say that I enjoyed reading your book, and you did approach the subject in a different and interesting manner. What is the one Ripper related book I don't have? I will have to try and get a copy.
Viper,
Valid comments and it is a pity that we do not have more complete information on the victims and witnesses. Unfortunately the inquest reports on Stride are missing, as we know. The inquest reports from the newspapers do clearly give Kidney's address as Dorset Street and we do know that Stride was latterly living in the lodging house at 32 Flower and Dean Street, parallel with and adjacent to Fashion Street off Commercial Street. And, as you say, Catherine Lane who lived at this lodging house in Flower and Dean Street did say that Stride had lived in Fashion Street. There is a possibility that Stride moved out of her residence with Kidney whenever they had serious disputes and she may have moved into various lodging houses when she did so. The inquest evidence according to The Times is quoted in The Ultimate Sourcebook.
Both Elizabeth Tanner and Catherine Lane stated that Stride had been living in a lodging house in Fashion Street but do not mention Dorset Street, which could, I suppose, raise the suggestion that she lived with Kidney in a Fashion Street Lodging house. The frequency at which people moved around in those days when they lived in lodging houses was considerable. A possibility must exist that if they occupied a double bed (a valuable commodity) whilst living together, Kidney was obliged to move into a single when she had gone and had found one in Dorset Street. I really do not know, but points to consider I guess.
As far as I know there is no clear evidence as to what their final address as a couple was. I do remember querying it with Phil once and he did state that it was Devonshire Street but I did not go into any detail with him. When I next speak with Phil I will question it.
Kidney's statement, according to the The Times report was to the effect that he had last seen Stride alive on Tuesday week (i.e. Tuesday 25 September) and that he "left her in Commercial-street as I was going to work." He denied that he had a quarrel with her although she told Lane on the Thursday (27 September) that she "had a few words with the man she was living with and left him." As she did not move into the 32 Flower and Dean Street address until the Thursday, that would seem to leave two nights (Tuesday and Wednesday) unaccounted for. She obviously frequented lodging houses in the Fashion Street and Flower and Dean Street area, there were plenty of them.
What must be significant are Kidney's words that he left her in Commercial Street to go to work (or home), on the Tuesday. To say he left her there indicates that they had walked there, but from where? And had they actually had words at this time, which he denied, or not? For if she was intent on leaving him, he may have been following her along the street, from wherever they lived, trying to persuade her to come back, but then had to leave her to go to work. Although in the Daily Telegraph report he is quoted as saying "...I left her on friendly terms in Commercial-street as I was coming from work. This was between nine and ten o'clock at night." These are the sort of questions that are really unanswerable. But there are apparent inconsistencies and it would be natural for Kidney to deny any dispute as he would know that he would be a natural suspect for her murder. Obviously if she was staying in, or intending to stay in, the lodging houses we know she used, then Commercial Street would be the obvious location for her to be.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 08:28 am | | | I think Eddowes had a definite destination in mind when she stumbled out of that police station and it was St. Botolph's Church where the prostitutes marched around and around it parading themselves. The jailer said she was headed in that direction. I think she got there and Jack picked her from the parade. Then the two of them had to find a secluded spot to conduct their business. Mitre Square was only a couple of blocks away. Kate needed money for a doss. Otherwise she would have to go home to a "fine hiding". |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 09:32 am | | Yes Viper, I go along with you.
I reread that portion of Sugden's book yet again to refresh my memory, and to be honest I am not convinced for he is quoting two different media sources and then alleging that one is right and the other wrong, anyone could claim that he was wrong and that it was the other media reference that is correct. Musical chairs really.
Like you I am sure Stride did live at Devonshire Street at some time, but not at the time of her murder and I am as yet unconvinced that Kidney lived there at all.
Wherever they lived I still maintain that Kidney was Stride's killer, and not our Jack the Lad.
For my thoughts check out the relevant chapter on this site elsewhere. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 09:43 am | | | I thank you Stewart, the book I refer to is the only fully signed first edition copy of one hundred numbered copies (No 76) of 'Who Was Jack The Ripper' by Grey House Books. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 09:57 am | | Diana and others
Yes Eddowes could have been heading virtually anywhere upon her release, but are you all trying to tell me that at the height of the Ripper scare there was a regular merry-go-round of prostitutes milling around St Botolph's Church at one in the morning with crowds of sex hungry men watching the carousel and picking one out who took their fancy?
I can imagine Jack the Lad arriving and standing there, rubbing shoulders with a couple of uniformed PC's and others in the crowd.
'Evening, Jack,' says one of the constables. 'See anything you fancy tonight?'
'Good evening, constable,' replies Jack. 'Yes, I do believe I am attracted to the lady there in the black straw bonnet and white apron. I believe I will take her off to Mitre Square and rip her up a bit.'
'Very good, sir,' replies other constable. 'You mind yourself now, there are some rough types around here.'
Nah, sorry. I don't buy it. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 10:07 am | | Thanks for those comments, Stewart. For some while my take on this matter has been more or less as per your third paragraph. Namely that for some time, but probably weeks rather than months, the couple had been living together in Fashion Street. Then subsequent to Liz’s murder, Kidney had moved out of his own accord – or was told to do so – and he settled in Dorset Street. I'm unaware of any evidence that Liz ever lived in Dorset Street with Kidney.
Interestingly, 38 Dorset St. wasn’t a registered common lodging-house; rather the 1881 and ’91 census returns list families there, strongly suggesting that it was a tenement rented out by the room. Cost may not therefore have been the reason for Kidney’s move, as Tully suggested it was.
More details about the saga of Liz's hymn book would shed light on the couples' address together, but Mrs. Smith was never a witness at the inquest and with a name as common as that there's no realistic chance of tracing her. It is a pity that more records haven’t survived and that we can’t even pinpoint the victim’s addresses with 100% certainty.
Diana,
I agree completely with your interpretation of Eddowes’ movements. St. Botolph’s Aldgate was a popular haunt of prostitutes and one where they could operate with relative freedom. There is every chance that it’s where Kate had got lucky less than twelve hours previously. It only takes 7-8 minutes to walk there from Bishopsgate Police Station and it’s less than a quarter of an hour from Kate’s dwellings in Flower & Dean Street. So it would have seemed tempting to take that detour and get her doss money.
Regards, V. |
Author: Moonlite
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 02:18 pm | | Hi Stewart Evans
I agree with you 100% that Eddowes knew who Jack was. But why would she take such a chance in letting it be known? Was she that desperate for money that she would risk her life just to get money out of him. This doesn't make a lot of sense. Unlike a few of the others who were murdered, she was with Kelly for some time and from what has been written, their's seemed to have been a good relationship. She must not have told John Kelly who Jack was or he surely would have revealed Jack's identity.
Why do you think she kept the identity to herself knowing the danger to her own life?
regards |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 03:12 pm | | A.P.
I do have that book.
The scene you describe 'of prostitutes milling around St. Botolph's Church' is rather exaggerated. But we know for a fact that they continued to ply their trade despite the earlier murders (there hadn't been another for three weeks), as witness Stride's obvious soliciting in Berner Street. But there are other examples, even into October, after the double murder.
Viper,
Yes, it's a very possible scenario, I know the depth of thought and research that you put into your deductions. I will check with Phil to see if he has any comment on this. However, you make good points, as usual.
Moonlite,
I think that you mean A.P., personally I don't think that Eddowes had any idea as to the identity of the Whitechapel murderer.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Joan O'Liari
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 03:54 pm | | Hello to all; Something else has been bothering me about Michael Kidney's information; Dr. George Bagster Philips states that he had gone back to the mortuary to examine the bruises on the shoulders, and noted that he found in her pocket-"key as if belonging to a padlock".etc. Michael Kidney was recalled and asked by Inspector Reid,"When you and deceased lived together, I believe you had a padlock on the door?" His reply;"Yes, there was only one key, which I had, but she got in and out somehow".
He continues on that the hymn book had been taken away during his absence on Wednesday, after just saying that Liz had left it with the neighbour Mrs. Smith on the Tuesday when she left, but he had found it there,and Liz came and took it.
If there was only one key, did Michael Kidney lock Liz out all day,and that is why he "left her" on his way to work? How did he expect that she would be at home when he got back, waiting to be let in? If Liz had another locked safe place why did she leave her velvet with a fellow lodger? Her minister had said she did some sewing, so perhaps she had a job to make a dress for a customer.
Yes Richard, there was a heavy Jewish population, why do you think they had to erase the graffiti so quickly? The whole building where it was written was mainly populated with working Jewish families. There was a strong clothing manufacturing business,and many other types of thriving activity.
I do not think the killer was Jewish necessarily, but the links here may be the cause of them being in the places that they were killed.
The previous murders in the Whitechapel area had been confined to that area so far, and the killer striking in the City for the first time must have taken everyone by surprise,even it's beat coppers. Interesting about the fixed beat police always getting done at 1 o'clock, this must have been when all the fun started.
Yes Mr. Evans; we must always look for those discrepancies. Thanks for the stimulating conversations. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:18 pm | | Stewart
as regards exaggeration yes you are right but I hope you could see where I was going, however, sorry I don't buy Stride soliciting that night, I remain totally unconvinced that Stride was on the game that night, she was in company the entire night and very happy with that situation.
Show me otherwise and I'll buy it. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:23 pm | | Moonlite
plain human nature and greed, that's all, us little monkeys like to keep everything to ourselves. |
|
|
|
|
