|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 07 February 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Elizabeth Stride:
WAS STRIDE WAITING FOR SOMEONE:
Archive through 07 February 2003
Author: richard nunweek
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 09:22 am |        | Hi everyone.
The more one looks at the Berner Street murder, the more it appears that she was waiting at the entrance of Dutfields yard for a specific person.
Is it not possible that she was standing at the yard entrance waiting for someone to come out of the Workingmens club.
Matthew packer claims to have seen stide and a man stand in the rain for half an hour facing the yard.Her killer may have told her to wait for him at the entrance.
Lets take a possible solution.
At 11.pm she leaves the The Bricklayers Arms with a young man of clerkly appearence , and goes in the direction of commercial road and berner street,she is seen in Berner street by william marshall, he hears him say ; you will say anything but your prayers; they then move off to packers shop to buy some grapes . On leaving the shop they are seen to be hanging about near the yard.
Were they both waiting for someone to come out of the club?.They still appear to be there around 12.30am , yet some 15 mins later Schwartz, says she was standing alone at the yard entrance,and the man he saw attack stride tried to pull her away from the entrance . Clearly stride did not want to leave that place.
Was she waiting for this man she had been with to come out of the club,mayby he went in there to find the man he had been waiting for.
It could also be possible that they were waiting for his acomplice[unknown to Stride]. And while stride was waiting for him to come back out , he did just that and attacked and cut her throat from behind ,not hanging around to committ his trade mark savagery.
I am beginning to sway to the possibility that there were two people involved in these killings one possibly of clerkly appearence ,and one more of lawendes discription .
Lets take chapmans murder the man mrs Darrell saw may have enticed her into the yard where her killer was waiting, the same goes for eddowes her killer may have already been in the square it is entirely possible that the same thing happened to mjk .
The above remarks are made slightly tonque in cheek, but if there was two people involved in these murders it would explain why the two people who must have seen the killer . mrs darrell . and joseph lawande gave very different discriptions , which obviously would be the case if this scenerio is corrrect.
richard. |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 06:23 pm | | Whatho Richard,
An interesting idea with, perhaps, more than a shread of truth.
We must consider the character of Berner Street. Was it a street usually used by prostitutes to pick up their clients? If so, I think it is probable Liz was waiting for anyone with 4d to spend. If not, well Liz had to be waiting there for a reason.
If we take the latter option, I think she was there waiting for a lover perhaps in a non-professional context; she was not the burnt out old harridan some authorities would like us to believe. Her official lover, the delightful Michael Kidney, got wind of this and decided to come round and sort her out. This he did too well. I think the description of the affray at the gate of Dutfield's Yard shows she knew her attacker and it was a "domestic". It it was just anyone attacking her, I think she would have made more noise.
I don't think Packer's testomy is worth an empty bag of grape juice stained paper.
So Richard, I agree with you Liz was waiting for someone but not that she was a victim of the Ripper.
Cheers, Mark who prefers his grapes crushed and fermented |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 06:13 am | | Hello Mark & Richard,
The last words that all 5 said according to witnesses give the impression they were meeting someone.
A. |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 07:57 am | | I have been giving the possibility of two people being involved in these crimes quite a bit of thought.
I must add mark, I am a believer in stride being killed by the ripper. The coincedence that the ripper was out to murder that night[ eddowes was most certainly a victim] and that two women of similar character were murdered within 45 minutes of each other suggests that.
The reason why stride received only a cut throat has been well documented he simply was disturbed.
Mrs darrell saw chapman with a man about 40years of shabby genteel appearence,Marshall in berner street saw a man of middle age with stride, hutchinson sees a man of 35 years with kelly.The only time a man of lawendes description appears is at mitre square.
letting my imagination run wild .is it not possible that the man of clerkly appearence accosted the victims and led them to a arranged location when the killer did his deeds. It would suggest then that the berner street events went like this.
stride and the middle aged man stood waiting for someone outside the workingmans club this was the arranged location[he could have told stride he was waiting for his friend and they would go back to his place for a drink etc.when he came out.
After some time he told stride to wait and went into the club , at this time the killer who was on his way to the arranged spot saw stride and accosted her in the manner seen ,her into the darkness of the yard cut her throat and then heard the horse and cart arrive, he hid in the darkness until diemschutz ran into the club for help, he then slipped away .
The man who was with stride would have guessed what had just transpired and left sharply before the police arrived and set of in pursuit of his friend, who was on his way towards mitre square he may even have been the man who was seen cleaning his knife on a doorstep shortly after 1am
He may have even spotted him with eddowes at some distance and he could be the man who approached james blenkinsop [nightwatchman at st james place] asking if a man and a woman passed . he was described as respectably dressed.
He may have found him shortly before they passed into the square ,during the murder , or after .
All this sounds far fetched but it would explain a lot of mysterys .
Was stride waiting for someone?
who did james blenkinsop see.
Why joseph lawende saw a different person then Elizabeth darrell[ and mrs long]
It would make sense that the ripper had an acomplice he would simply wait in a pre arranged location for his victim to be delivered to him. and after the event [not in strides case] simply walk off together to there place of abode . Who would be looking for two men in the area .
There ends my imagination.
regards richard |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 09:45 am | | Hi Richard,
Actually Stride is seen with at least four different people the night of her murder.
First we have Stride's sighting at 11 p.m. by Best and Gardner. They state the gentleman they saw with her had a dark Moustache, weak looking, Mourning Suit, and Billycock hat. Second we have Stride's sighting by Marshall at 11:45 p.m., who states the man he saw her with had no moustache was stout, and was wearing a Sailor's peak cap. The man seen by P.C. Smith at 12:30 a.m. and Brown at 12:40 a.m. does somewhat agree with Marshall's sighting, so it's both possible that this is the same man, yet possibly not. Then by Schwartz statement at 12:45 a.m. we have two different people seen with Stride, neither of which correspond with any of the other descriptions.
However, here's the thing I find peculiar about her case. She's seen with at least two people who were probably clients(the one spotted by Best and Gardner and the one witnessed by Brown and P.C. Smith), yet had no money on her person when her body was found.(We know the killer didn't take it, because her pockets hadn't been rifled.) Now perhaps the first one paid for the drinks, but what about the second? Now Brown states hearing Stride tell the suspect she is seen with 'No, not tonight perhaps some other night.' So perhaps no 'transaction' took place with him?
Yet if the man seen by Brown and P.C. Smith is the same as that seen by Marshall, an hour earlier, then how is it that some type of 'business' wasn't done within that hour? Why is she with this man for an hour and hasn't taken any money, nor rendered any services? And where does he disappear to when Stride is assualted?
Now if the man seen by Marshal is different than the one seen by Brown and P.C. Smith, then where's the money Stride would have made from a transaction with him?(Like others have stated Packer is VERY unreliable, especially since NO grapes were found anywhere near the crime scene, nor eaten by the victim. Plus, there are the many OTHER stories that he tells later on.) Perhaps the one who is seen by Schwartz is a pimp or robbing her?(This is Gang Territory.) However, if he's the killer then why is all her items in her pockets when her body is found?
As for the club idea, well all the faces seen in the club before the murder, were accounted for when the Police showed up. So if the Ripper's accomplice did go into the club, he stayed with them until after the Police were satisified that they had no involvement in the crime, which would be WELL after Bleckinsop spotted his 'well dressed man'.
As for Mrs. Darrel and Mrs. Long. Well actually Darrel is Long. They're one and the same person. And Long's description is much different than Lawende's,(Long states the man seen with Chapman is over 40 and Dark complected while Lawende places his suspect at 28 with a light complexion.) which again is different than Schwartz and any of the other witnesses of Stride's death. So either we have 3 accomplices to murder(well 2 and 1 murderer), one of the victims wasn't killed by the Ripper, which is possible with Stride, or somebody didn't see who they thought they saw, which could be possible in any of the cases.
Now if there is an accomplice, this person would be more harm than good in Miller's Court.(If he's standing outside the Court he wouldn't be able to see anyone coming out of the Court until they are next to Mary's door, not to mention he would be EASILY spotted there in the street.(Lewis spotted Hutchinson there.) If he's inside the Court, there's no place for him to hide when someone is coming in or leaving the Court, or even if they just look out a window. If he's in the room then this defeats the purpose, because not only is he constricting the other's 'work', but also it would be easier to be spotted if the two of them are in the room together and looking out the window wouldn't give them a full view of the area.) Now in the case of Eddowes, only having ONE Lookout wouldn't be very helpful. There are three entrances to the Square, two of which have excellent views of the murder scene, not to mention the fact that there is a nightwatchman in one of the buildings of the square, plus people's homes which have a view of the square. And even in Nichol's case we have three different ways a person could come up on them.(Down from either end of Buck's row, as well as coming around the school from Winthorp St.(where the Horse Slaughters do their work)) So it wouldn't be very helpful for an accomplice to be a lookout in these crimes. And we know there is NO way a carriage could have gone through these streets without anyone noticing.
So although I do find the theory of the Ripper having an accomplice rather interesting, I see too many facts that would lean against it compared to those that lean towards it.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 12:48 pm | | Hi chris.
There is no doubt about it this case is extremly complex.My theory of an acomplice seems alright,until one trys to unravel all the descriptions. however I still see merit in the possibility that the victims were lured to their deaths by a person not being the actual murderer.
Stride was alone at 12,45 am at Dutfields yard the man seen by p.c smith ,and brown had gone.
The comment by stride ;Not tonight,some other night; is a rejection of a offer, which seems to imply that she was not avaliable ,that she had other plans,
Even when the intoxicated man was seen to try and pull stride into the street ,she stood her ground as if determined to stay where she was.
If there is any truth in the acomplice theory then either Marshalls ,pc smith , or browns man had to be the acomplice. and for some reason she had to remain there waiting mayby for the acomplice who had promised to return.
The question is where was the killer could it have been the man seen lighting his pipe, who seemed to react suddenly at strides drunken attacker.
One intresting point regarding kelly, lets say that there was an acomplice that escorted the victims to the chosen spot. Having found a suitable person in kelly he could have suggested that they go somewhere private , to which kelly would have replied ; There is no need i have a room; The man could have gone to kellys room , made some excuse to leave , and returned shortly after with the killer knowing that this would be the best yet.
You are right when you say a lookout would have been unreliable. but my feelings are the killer of these women was a hopeless maniac ,and i cannot imagine how he would be able to give a sence of trust to these terrified souls . And therefore being led to there deaths by a person who gave them no sence of terror would seem to me quite plausible.
Regards Richard |
Author: julienonperson
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 12:49 pm | | Andy & Sue Parlour,
I agree with you and most others who are of the opinion that each of the women were waiting for someone. I also think they knew the person and were willing to wait knowing that this person was a good paying customer, maybe from previous encounters. I don't think he lived in the immediate area, however I do think he worked in the area, in a somewhat respectable position. Maybe good ole Jack tried them out first to test their vunerability. Maybe I'm all wet.He may not have had sex with them, he may have just toyed with them but paid for their time. Most of the girls were the worst for drink at the time and would probably not know the difference. They may
have been just paid for their silence etc.
Love to hear your comments.
regards julie |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 07:15 pm | | Whatho Richard,
Yes, I agree, the tought of two murderers strolling the streets of the East End at near enough the same is a incredible but that is what I believe. Whereas the Ripper was a serial murderer killing Catherine Eddowes for his own horrid reasons, Michael Kidney was a "one off" murderer killing Elizabeth Stride in drunken anger.
Both events could have happened on different nights; in this case it just so happened the two murders occured on the same night. An unusal combination of events even in this day and age I realise.
So I do not claim my version is correct and all others wrong. I think it is best to keep an open mind on all aspects of the Whitechapel Murders. There are too many closed minds on these boards and we can read the nastiness with which they write when someone has the temerity to question their beliefs.
So Richard, although (at present) I do not agree with you, I shall enjoy reading your theories. You may be right!
Cheers, Mark in an unusual evenhanded mood |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 05:39 am | | Hello Julie,
When Sue and I researched and co-wrote our book we especially included more information on the women. Sue an I always wanted to bring a sense of justice to these poor wretched souls and not just write about them as if their lives did not matter. This I think we have somewhat achieved, that is the advantage of a male/female writing team.
It does seem all 5 had make arrangements to meet a person or persons. 1. Mary Nicholls, "Keep my bed I'll soon earn my doss". (And where did she get that new bonnet?). 2.Annie Chapman "Don't let my bed I'll be back soon, I won't be long Brummie". 3, Liz Stride left her few belongings in the care of Mrs Smith, saying she will be back soon. 4. Catherine Eddowes urgently wanted to be released from custody at the Bishopgate Police Station. 5. Mary Kelly was seen several times on the night of her murder and was last seen escorting someone to her room. (These incidents are covered more fully in our book).
And as for a particular theory as to why the murders were committed yes, we do give one, but do not ram it down anyones throat. As we say at the end of our book: "We are only spinning a yarn", which to be quite honest is all anyone who writes on the subject is.
A&S. |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:43 pm | | Andy & Sue,
Thank you for your honest posting. And I think you are right, that someone needs to care about them.
I hope that one day, if Jack is unveiled, the gals will finally get peace.
regards
julie |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 12:49 pm | | Hi Richard,
One of the problems to the theory is, what's in it for the accomplice? Unless he's a Homicidal Lunatic himself, why is he knowingly leading these women to their impending doom, as well as hiding the actual killer?
In the various theories surrounding accomplices to the Ripper, the accomplice was typically promised an 'Advancement' of some kind, or was part of some 'Plot'.
There would have to be some pretty good 'pay-off' for the accomplice not to give up the killer. Especially after a pardon was offered.(Not to mention the possibility of cashing in on a MAJOR REWARD for turning in the murderer.)
Hi Andy and Sue,
Unfortunately I have some problem with your theory as well. At least when it comes to basing it on the first two Victim's statements:
1.) Polly Nichols. Yes, it is rather interesting about Polly's 'New Bonnet'. However, we mustn't forget that Polly does have a history of theft. So the Bonnet could have been stolen.
Now going by the time she left her Lodgings at 1:20, which is where she states that she'll 'soon get her doss money.' Polly is next seen over an hour later at 2:30 by her friend Emily Holland stating 'I've had my doss money three times today and spent it. It won't be long before I'm back.' Meaning Polly did have some pretty good trade that day(which again could explain the Bonnet), so obviously she thought she could quickly earn the money again.
However, we can't overlook the fact that Polly did say she might take up Holland's offer of sharing a bed in Flower and Dean Street if she couldn't find any trade.(So if she had a rendevous set up, it definitely wasn't certain.) And her body isn't found until another hour later. Which is 2 hours since she left the lodging house in the first place.(Which isn't exactly 'soon' as she told the Deputy.)
So it seems a bit unlikely that she had an 'appointment' with someone. After all, she was kicked out of the Lodging House.(She had planned on spending the night, but the Deputy put her to the curb.) So how is this supportive of one?
2.) Annie Chapman. I feel this one is pretty straightforward against the 'appointment' theory. Chapman is ill. At 1:35 she begs the Lodging House Keeper, Donovan, to let her stay the night and she'll make up the money for him. However, like Nichols, Annie is booted out the establishment until she can pay. She does state that she 'won't be long' in getting the money though. However, her body is found 4 hours later.(Again so much for her returning 'soon' for that bed that night.)
After 5 O'clock it wouldn't be worth her trying to get the bed.(After all she's going to need money to eat that day.) So again, it seems to me more like there wasn't an 'appointment'. Rather Annie 'Carried the Banner' all night, hoping to find some trade to earn some money for both food and a bed for the following night.
As for Stride and Eddowes, many of the things that happened the night of their death could be explained either way.
Stride was on a night on the town, so hence she doesn't want to be burdened by carrying a lot of items. We don't know of her usual 'haunts', however I'd think it would be in pretty close to where she was killed. Simply because of the Swedish Church being nearby.(Since Stride speaks fluent Swedish, and most prostitutes obviously didn't, she might be able to get a little 'extra' trade with her fellow Swedes who reside near the Church.) And the 'not tonight, but some other night' statement could simply be Stride turning down a client after having been with a few, turning down the advances of a pimp(which occurs quite often in her line of work), or simply because she didn't like the look of the customer. But like I said, it could go either way.
Eddowes being anxious to get out of jail could simply be chalked up to the fact that who really likes to be locked up in a jail cell? And let's not forget that cells back then weren't anywhere near as nice as they are now. Actually it would have been more like what many of us envision a dungeoun to look like.(At least the lodging houses had a somewhat decent bed to sleep in.) Plus, added with the fact that Eddowes had no way of knowing how long she had dozed, and what time it was, as well as her being charged at 8 p.m., would make it a bit doubtful that she had an 'appointment' with someone.(At least one she was able to keep.)
And the reason why she didn't go directly back to the Lodging House can possibly be simply solved. Eddowes has no money for a bed. So she decides instead to stay sleepless for one night, ply a bit of trade in the populated areas of Aldgate, Whitechapel High Street, and Commercial Street, that way she can earn money for a bed the following night, as well as possibly some food.
But again like I said, she could have had an appointment. There's not alot of evidence either way.
Now Kelly is a bit too hard to decipher either way. There's too many variables to the equation to even conjecture one way or the other.
But who knows, hopefully one day I might get around to buying your book.(I am still interested by the way, just been strapped for cash a lot lately.) And you might convince me otherwise. ;)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 10:54 am | | Richard
I would be most interested to know where you obtained the description of the man with Stride
that night as a 'young clerk'. I haven't seen that myself and as I just spent the last two hours studying the latest HO and police files on the case to be released I should like to know, please.
Interesting discussion.
As I believe our Jack the Lad did have an unwitting accomplice, who was both unaware of the gravity of the situation, and also suffered from an acute form of paranoia himself.
As a matter of interest I have very recently come across three new references to suspects seen with the victims and in each case the suspect is described as looking like a 'young clerk'.
Now as you may or may not know I maintain that Stride was not killed by our Jack the Lad but instead by her boyfriend Michael Kidney, so I would not be happy to know for a fact that she was seen that night with a suspect who looked like a 'young clerk'. |
Author: richard nunweek
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 06:56 am | | Hi Wolf.
With reference to the young clerk seen with Stride.
On page 441 of the A-Z,it is stated that J Best and John Gardner saw her leave the Bricklayers arms in settles street at 11.pm in company with a young englishman of clerkly appearence and go in the direction of commercial road and berner street.
The only doubt here is although William Marshall states he saw stride with a man of similar discription, he also says the man appeared middle age.
Also other witnesses who later saw stride do not mention a young clerkly description.
However if this person [and this Bricklayers Arms man was the first to be seen with stride] was jacks accomplice his job may simply have escorted the victim to a place pre chosen and instructed her to wait there until his return saying it would be well worth her while.
The other men seen with her up to the attack seen by Israel Schwartz, may simply have been potential customers who were rejected by stride, for she had no intention of leaving the area of Dutfields yard with mayby the promise of fruitful pickings.
The person i would be intrested to know more about would be the man Schwartz saw lighting his pipe who seemed to react quickly when stride was accosted. He was described as 5 foot 11 inches tall, and as the man that manhandled stride was only 5 feet 5 inches, surely would have backed down at seeing him rush over.
Nobody reported in hearing a fracass at that time so i would presume the smaller man would have carried on his way, leaving the good samaritan with stride therefore he being the last person who was with her.
You say that you have seen reports of a young clerkly person with other victims, that would be intresting.
Regards richard' |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 10:55 am | | Hi A.P.,
Welcome back from Australia.
You said:
"as I just spent the last two hours studying the latest HO and police files on the case to be released"
I hadn't heard of new files on the case held by the Home Office or Scotland Yard. What are these files?
Thanks,
Sir Robert |
Author: AP. Wolf
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 01:39 pm | | Richard,
yes, I've found that reference of yours and also another, from Matthew Packer's statement to the police: 'I put the man down as a young clerk' referring to the man who seemed to have spent most of the evening with Long Liz.
From the Daily Telegraph 20 October 1888 a clearly confused and disorganized man 'dressed in clerical costume' attempts to find the address of Mr Lusk and then runs off.
Again Daily Telegraph 10 November 1888 a young man who was a clerk and hanging around Dorset Street was set upon by a mob after the murder of Kelly and had to be protected by the police.
Perhaps the police felt that clerks were far too respectable to suspect in the murders?
I know one clerk who wasn't.
This type of behaviour is of interest as you may well see from my next chapter which I hope to have ready today. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 01:50 pm | | Sorry Sir Robert
I should have added 'latest to me' as I have been out of orbit for the last five years and am only now getting round to all the new material that has since been released or discovered since my early retirement from the scene.
It has just occured to me that surely somewhere the name of the young clerk rescued by the police in Dorset Street on 10 November 1888 from an angry mob must have been recorded?
Surely some of you young guns can find it? |
Author: richard nunweek
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 06:59 am | | Hi Wolf.
I must admit I feel that the various sightings of a young clerk seen with Stride have a strong significance
The young clerk rescued by police in Dorset street twenty four hours after the murder is fascinating. I have not seen the name of this person as yet, however I am sure if it is in print anywhere someone will trace it.
The reference a clearly confused and disorganized man would give the impression to me that it would fit an accomplice who was mayby weak minded and easily led.
Much has been mentioned recently of Ivors book and the distances between murder sites.The word coincedence annoys me because it always crops in this case, My theory of the number 39, Scotts number 38, have been dismissed as coincedence even if the 39 has black magic significance , just like the points of the compass and distances.
I feel if we all alter our way of thinking in these murders and place more significance on the ritual theme we could have more success , instead of going back down the same old path, something which we are all guilty of.
I feel strongly and always have that the murders were committed because of the fifth victim Mary Kelly, and that somewhere in her mysterious history lies the truth.
I also feel that the ripper had an assistant who although may not have parcipitated in the actual murders , was responsible in finding suitable victims and leading them to prearranged locations where they were butchered. In the case of kelly I believe the killer [ whome kelly knew] completed the act without help.
Obviously I have no evidence of my conclusions , at least to date.I feel that it would do no harm to give The ritual , and accomplice idea more constructive thought.
Regards Richard. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 01:40 pm | | Richard
I'd go along with you regarding the importance of the young clerk who seems to surface in many of the reports associated with the murders - not just Stride - however I do tend to shy away from magical and or ritualized solutions, perhaps I shouldn't as my own research has shown that many killers do have a self-perceived magical ritualization to their terrible crimes. My shyness is perhaps based on a desperate attempt to cling to solid facts in a landscape of slippery theories and solutions.
I'm with you on an accomplice as well - but here I must say that I do mean an unwitting accomplice who was not fully aware of his actions or the repercussions of those actions due to his own parlous mental condition at the time. In the final - and still to be written - last chapter of my book which is appearing on this site from time to time, I will be producing new and compulsive evidence that this was indeed the case.
Mary Kelly as the source of the truth?
I think not.
More like Catherine Eddowes for me.
Enjoying the exchange of views and ideas. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 02:22 pm | | "More like Catherine Eddowes for me. "
Hey AP,
I myself have always wondered about Eddowes' claim to know the Ripper and stating she intended to collect the reward. It's just one of those little factoids about the case that leaves one with a nagging feeling it's not getting the attention it deserves.
Regards,
Sir Robert |
Author: AP. Wolf
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 05:20 pm | | Sir Robert
It is not so much her claim that intrigues my good self but rather her behaviour pattern for the entire week - and especially the day -leading up to her unfortunate murder that nags at me.
As a great student of human behaviour I read many signs in her movements and actions which do lead me to believe that she certainly had prior contact with our Jack the Lad - or someone very close to him - and was perhaps privy to some sort of knowledge about the killer which we have yet to discover. This may have been something quite simplistic, something very day to day, but of enormous import.
I can assure you that I will give this subject the attention it deserves. |
Author: richard nunweek
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 07:29 am | | Hi Wolf, and Sir Robert,
Regarding Eddowes she and John Kelly went hop picking as usual that autumn . She and Kelly went on the 1st sept and returned on the 27th sept, as they were not making it pay.
My point being they left the day after Nichols murder and were absent from the district on the chapman murder and as these two killings were the first of the series and being in the hop fields of kent would they have been aware of any major chaos in whitechapel? After all tabram was only a frenzied stabbing not gross mutalation.
Although it is claimed that eddowes said I know the killer and i am going to claim the reward, sounds like tonque in cheek to me.
If you are right and the mystery lies with Eddowes and she was a target for The Ripper , then whoever organized it must have been aware of police practise in releasing drunks when they sobered up , and entertained her in the local pubs that afternoon and evening in a ploy to get her arrested for drunkeness,and was aware of what station she was held ,and waited around till she was released in the early hours of the morning ,escorted her to Mitre Square and carried out the killing.
This leaves a lot of questions to be answered.
Regards Richard. |
Author: richard nunweek
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 09:17 am | | Hi Wolf ,and Sir Robert,
Sorry I had to end the last post quickly ,lunch was ready.
Questions;
How could the killer of Eddowes be certain that she would be released at any given time ?.
How could he be certain she would not be released with a police escort?.
How could he loiter and he would have to, to be certain for over five hours in the vacinity of the police station?
Of course his plan may have simply been to spend the evening with eddowes and kill her later that evening ,but she got herself arrested, and he had to wait .However for one person to spend hours with a victim in a public house would be asking for trouble.
I am afraid I see Eddowes as simply been in the wrong place ,at the wrong time.
The events that night I would say went this way .
Stride is picked up by a young englishman of clerky appearence in the Bricklayers Arms , they leave shortly after 11.pm, and head in the direction of berner street , where the man buys some grapes from Packers shop.They stand and talk outside Dutfields yard for some time ,and the man tells her to wait at the entrance until his return.
He then goes off to locate a second victim in the vacinity of Mitre Square which is the next location but he has changed his appearence to a cloth cap and hankerchief.
meanwhile Stride is attacked and murdered , and her killer proceeds towards the square, he sees his accomplice with a woman and waits in the darkness of the square till she is brought to him when she is savagely murdered.
The above sequence of events of course is purely fiction, but it would explain the use of an accomplice.
Although an accomplice in acting in that manner would be a very sick man indeed, yet cunning and normal in appearence, and able to conduct himself in a manner that made the victims not fear him.
I am sorry that i cannot share the Edddowes plot, yet I have an open mind on this subject , and as you proberly can sense an active imagination
Regards Richard. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 01:22 pm | | Richard
I look at the situation as being more simple than you imagine.
As you know Eddowes was released from Bishopsgate Police Sation at 1.00 am and her body was discovered at 1.45 am in Mitre Square.
Evidence given at the inquest showed that it took a normal person eight minutes to walk from the police station to the square, so we'll give Eddowes ten minutes on account of her poor physical condition and a hangover. That leaves 35 minutes unaccounted for - apart from a possible sighting at 1.35 am which may be dubious - so I would postulate that Eddowes left the police station and headed straight back to 29 Aldgate High Street - where she had been arrested earlier in the day - and met up with the same person who had given her the money to get herself howling drunk and they then took a little walk up to Mitre Square where this same person then murdered her. Outside a warehouse belonging to Kearly & Tonge.
There was no need for elaborate arrangments or meetings. It was the continuation of a course of events that had begun with Eddowes unknown movements the day before here murder.
As for Eddowes claim to have known the identity of the 'Whitechapel Murderer' this intrigues me mostly as she seems to have possessed this information before she went hop picking in Kent, as she said 'I have come back...'
And perhaps this is the prime reason why the case of Eddowes deserves closer scrutiny. |
Author: Chris Phillips
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 03:19 pm | | I've read (in more than one place, I think), that prostitutes used to perform a sort of pedestrian carousel around the church of St Botolph, Aldgate, in an attempt to pick up punters. Isn't it likely that Eddowes was taking part in this odd ritual in the missing half-hour? When she made contact with a client, Mitre Square would be a reasonably close, dark and secluded place to go. This seems a natural explanation, and I don't see any need to postulate any elaborate explanation for her ending up there.
If St Botolph's was a regular pick-up point, it would be logical for the Ripper to seek a victim there. But going back to Stride, was Berner Street a place where you would expect to find a prostitute? The evidence at the inquest seems to suggest the street in general, and Dutfield's Yard in particular, weren't noticeably frequented by prostitutes. Maybe that lends some support to the idea that Stride wasn't a Ripper victim - or otherwise maybe it hints that the Ripper was walking along Berner Street on his way to look for a victim elsewhere (and Stride is by far the earliest - clock-wise - of the "canonical" victims). |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 03:40 pm | | | Which brings up another issue. As the church at St. Botolph was a well known pick up site, wouldn't the police have paid attention to it? I haven't seen anything commenting on police staking out the church. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 03:59 pm | | | There was no 29 Aldgate High Street during the murders or afterwards. There was no. 28, the premise of furniture dealer Henry Phillips and his family. Next door at no. 30 was the shop of an ironmonger, William Hattersley. Another poster here, Viper, has determined that Eddowes was actually arrested in front of Phillips' doorstep. P.C. Robinson's inquest statement was mistaken as to the address number. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 05:44 pm | | I'm in total agreement with Chris that we shouldn't look for complicated explanations when easy ones are available, but it is very easy to be dragged into a murky swamp here and not get out again. For instance I am corresponding privately with a number of researchers at the moment who claim that Eddowes was not an 'unfortunate', and still others who insist she didn't drink.
What's the consensus?
I don't think I can agree that Mitre Square would have been the ideal choice for an 'unfortunate' to take her trick, it was very heavily patrolled by the police at the time and there was a permanent watchman at the tea warehouse and it would have been a well known fact amongst the 'unfortunates' that a policeman actually lived there. Not a good place for murder either, but there you go, it happened.
Yes I have always been well aware that numbers 28 and 29 Aldgate High Street were joined into a single property before the murders - I do have the actual date but not to hand, dig it out if you like, it is in the postal directory - and that it traded as a furniture supplier, however that doesn't rule out the possibility of lodgers, and somewhere I have seen a reference to the address as a 'low class hotel'.
However, I don't think the actual number of the address is of great import, the fact that Eddowes was there is.
Probably. |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 07:04 am | | Hi Wolf,
Regarding Eddowes leaving the station at 1.am, and the time it would take her at normal walking pace to reach Mitre square, why is it assumed she would have had time to go somewhere else,she is more likely to have met her pick up not far from the police station, and chatted .
It is more then likely that Eddowes was reluctant to go with a man stranger or not,and she would proberly taken some convincing to head off with this person. After all she was not known as a regular prostitute ,her and Kelly were a couple.
Infact they may have been standing at church passage for several minutes before Lawandes sighting just after 1.30am I think that witness most likely saw Eddowes he was positive on identification.
One point I agree with you if Eddowes did know the identity of the killer she would have suspected someone very early in this series of murders for she left to go hop picking only twenty four hours after Nichols and was absent from Whitechapel for the following 26 days.
I would imagine she would have heard of a brutal killing in Bucks Row by word of mouth on the 31st
but unless she had the paper delivered whilst hop picking would surely not put any relevance to this.
Of course that is pure speculation she may have suspected someone after the Tabram killing.
I have always believed Tabram was a victim because of the 39 connection, but I believe in assuming that, Ivors theory of measurement would be irrelevant.unless the distance from George buildings to bucks row is a similar distance .
Regards Richard.
/ |
Author: AP. Wolf
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 10:20 am | | Richard
a very valid point, and I for one agree that Eddowes well may have met someone on leaving BPS and then chatted and made her way to Mitre Square with them. Perhaps it just suits me to think that she was making her way back to Aldgate High Street, as that sits nicely with my own theories, but it is only a theory and your idea is certainly simpler, and I do have a feeling that the simpler explanation is always going to be closer to the truth of the matter.
I'm still sitting on the fence as regarding Eddowes being an 'unfortunate' or not. My feeling is that she was, but I honestly haven't really seen enough evidence to convince me either way. Why are you so sure? Just because she was in a permanent relationship with someone? I think you will find most prostitutes do have permanent relationships, many are even married with children and live a normal social life. That was probably not so true in 1888 but I personally would not accept that a woman - even then - could not be a prostitute because she was in a loving or caring situation with a boyfriend or similar.
Yes, I think Eddowes felt she knew the identity of Jack the Lad when she hopped to Kent, my guess is it would have been because of the Nichols murder, but having said that there is something nagging away at my brain about the Tabram murder, and I can't quite get what it is. I will though. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 12:03 pm | | Chris,A P,
Chris,
For what its worth Im with you also (little comfort eh ?). Seems logical to me.
A P,
I dont understand, how can researchers believe Kate didnt drink ? What was she arrested for ?
You can take that question a sarcastic one (in the teasing sense of course ).. but I really would like an answer to it.
Ive always though that there where empty dwellings in Mitre sq...would these be used by the unfortunates ??
Monty
 |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 12:51 pm | | Hi Wolf.
We can never know for sure if Eddowes was a street walker, however if we take the character references of several people who knew her ,such as the deputy of Cooneys lodging house where her and John Kelly stayed who said that she was not often in drink, and was a very jolly woman, often singing, and as far as he knew she was not in the habit of walking the streets, and she was in fact generally in the lodgings between 9.00pm -10.pm.and he had never known her to be intimate with anybody but John Kelly.
Also Kelly himself stated he did not know that eddowes ever went out for immoral purposes.
Other witnesses said she was of sober habits,of course ,one does not speak ill of the dead.
One thing that just struck me was the description of Eddowes being Jolly, and singing, a similar manner that Mary kelly seemed to have. [ Karoke would have been popular then].
So from the above statements made by her nearest and dearest, it would seem to suggest that apart from the odd drink too many when finances allowed she was not an established Whitechapel prostitute.
Regarding Tabram.
As I stated in my last post I have never doubted that she was the work of the Whitechapel murderer I also have a inkling that this murder could well have been slightly different in that the accomplice may have played a more significant role.
Its fully documented that two weapons may have been used on the victim, and that all but one could have been inflicted by an ordinary penknive.
I would doubt that the Ripper would have started off his deadly series of murders with such an ineffective tool.
Could not the accomplice have been encouraged to perform the penetrating wounds , and of course from then onwards he had no choice , as you have stated but being of weak character, he was forced to obey the Rippers orders because he was scared of the conseqences.
Regards Richard. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 01:21 pm | | Monty
I'm quite sure you are right about Mitre Square and there was at least one empty dwelling there, I still feel however that the police activity at the time would have prevented a prostitute using the square for her trick, but saying that I would have thought a PC coming through the square every 15 minutes would have worried a potential killer as well, it certainly didn't though. As regards Eddowes drinking behaviour, yes someone I am in contact with maintains that she was not a drinker despite her condition that night and despite the fact that her husband left her because of her drinking.
That I would point out is not my opinion. I feel she was a heavy drinker when she had the money to fuel her habit, which wasn't often. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 01:40 pm | | Richard
I can't agree with you about the penknife, I think we have to be very careful when talking about the 'form' of killers, as I have seen an overwhelming body of evidence that does show a serial killer can begin his odious career - and indeed end it - with very minor crimes, so minor that they may have no relation to his later crimes.
I believe Tabram was a victim of our Jack the Lad as well, the 39 mutilating stab wounds to her lower torso are not easily explained as a revenge or gang killing.
I think we may be at odds about an accomplice, for my thinking - as I have said before - is of a completely unwitting accomplice who is not really aware of the fact that he is even an accomplice. Your idea is much more hands on and I can't go along with that I'm afraid. |
Author: Joan O'Liari
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 11:05 pm | | Was Stride waiting for someone? She seemed to be hanging around, turning down other offers.
Now suppose that Liz, having just left her man again, decided to set her cap for some new interests. There would seem to be some very generous haberdashers, someone owning or working for a business in the clothing industry prevalent in the area, what with the nice piece of velvet she had acquired, and there seems to be a lot of scarves, hankies and bonnets going around.
The Jewish or socialist club meetings must have been easy pickings for those willing to be discreet. However they were also sort of like bait to someone with evil intent. I believe that Liz was hanging around so long that she was desperate to use the washroom, and the closest one was in Dutfield's yard. She may have been getting ready for the crowd coming out soon,freshening up, so to speak. As Jack grabbed her in the dark gateway, he soon heard the clip clop of the horse,and probably froze, but the horse slowed and began to enter the yard,and he had to leave quickly. He would have to get out of the area, and so walked all the way out to the City limits, and there on Duke St. was another Club just getting out.Instant replay! Along comes Catherine,having just been released for drunkeness.Who wants to go home to their man knowing that he is going to be very angry,(Oh, he's probably gone to bed anyway) and having a powerful thirst on for some more to drink. After getting her bearings, she heads right to the Duke Street area, maybe not so much for prostitution, but perhaps to find a friendly fellow with a little flask for after hours drinking. Jack meets up with her instead, and waits until those other fellows pass by, maybe she was frisking him with her hand on his chest, and off they went into the dark square. Now Jack slices, and listens, all is quiet this time,so he keeps going, and its getting slippery, so he ties that piece of apron around the knife for a better grip.Soon he feels satisfied with his work and takes off, but he heads back into his old stomping grounds, and cleans up a bit, maybe stowing his trophies somewhere for later. He walks out by Goulston Street, and drops the bloody rag as he has heard about the possibility of bloodhounds being brought in. His graffiti blamed the Jews for being the bait that innocently attracted the victims to where Jack could be sure of finding them, so they were not completely blameless in his twisted mind,(see what you have made me do) and then he goes home to write his nasty letters to the press. How does that sound? |
Author: Robin
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 06:02 am | | Dear AP,
re. your: 'I would have thought a PC coming through the square every 15 minutes would have worried a potential killer as well, it certainly didn't though.'
Thought this may interest you, and others.
During a recent conversation with four retired Metropolitan police officers (all are in their seventies) about JtR, I mentioned how PC Watkins said he checked Mitre Square approximately every fifteen minutes. The four gentlemen’s actual response to this is unrepeatable here. Suffice to say that they thought it extremely unlikely that any patrolling police officer would be that vigilant. Drawing on their own considerable experiences, they felt that irregular checks, cursory glances, and surreptitious cups of tea with local night watchmen would have been more the thing. As one of these aging gentlemen succinctly concluded: ‘Well, it’s human nature, isn’t it.’
Regards,
Robin |
Author: richard nunweek
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 07:02 am | | Hi Joan, and Wolf.
I am in agreement with both of you to a point.
Before this topic exhausts itself, I feel one mystery should be discussed.
As I stated in my last post any evidence given at the time seems to point to Eddowes not being a streetwalker.If this is true her actions have to be explained.
When she left the police station at 1.am, she turned left, the opposite she would have if intending to go to her lodgings.Of course she may have not been certain of her bearings if she was not familiar with that area, having been in a drunken state 5 hrs earlier.
Anyway regardless of that somewhere between the station and church passage , she comes in contact with a man, she may not have been too apprehensive as she would have been unaware of the Stride murder, and it had been 3 weeks since Chapman , but never the less if she was not a prostitute she would not consider any proposal to any sexual act .
So why should she stand close to a man at church passage with her hand on his chest[ not pushing away according to Lawande] and then go into Mitre square with him.
I could understand if Eddowes was walking alone through the court and was suddenly attacked by the killer, but to go with a man into that area for sexual purposes would completely be out of character[ unless a Brad Pitt lookalike] . If Lawande was not mistaken in his description of the dead woman, in my opinion she would have had to be either tricked into entering the Square, or physicaly dragged [ the first option seems more likely] .
She may have said i am not a loose woman , and refused his offer , to which he could have replied o.k well i dont like you out this time of the morning alone to be safe you can come to my lodgings and stay there , an offer Eddowes would have accepted gratefully, then simply followed the man into the square oblivious of what was to happen.
Remember she said I have come back to claim the reward money for the murderer , I know who he is, to which she was told be careful he may get you, to which she replied , he wont get me .
If Eddowes was not a prostitute , she might have assumed that she would never be in that position when her life would be threatened
To sum up.
There is no evidence that Catherine Eddowes was a prostitute , whereas all the others Tabram , Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Kelly certainly were, therefore why would she enter the square with a stranger, OR was he a stranger?.Another point which I AGREE WITH YOU WOLF, is what was the reason for her strange behaviour during the afternoon and early evening, hours before her death, Why would somebody supply her with alcohol she was hardly a ravishing beauty.Something is not quite right here.
Also Joan, regarding Stride waiting for the crowd to come out of the club, infact most of the people left some time previous only a few remained at the time of her death, I agree with you that she must have wanted to go to toilet , for it had been at least 90 min since she left the Bricklayers Arms. [ I could not last that long thats for sure].
Finally Wolf. I have an open mind on the actual parcipitation of an accomplice , you may be correct in your view , that he was unaware of his actions, that might explain the young clerk seen acting strangely in Dorset Street on the 10th nov.
I just made a reference to the fact that two weapons appeared to be used on Tabram, therefore two assailiants was a possibility.
Regards Richard. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 07:20 am | | Robin,
I've commented before that if I had been a patroling policeman in Whitechapel in 1888, the last thing I would have wanted would be to surprise Jack at work,-- I don't think I would be alone in that hope either, unless my reading of human nature has gone to pot.
When P.C. Harvey reported that he went down Church Passage, looked into the square and all was quiet,-- like those four senior ex-constables emphasised,--"we are only human",-- there is no guarantee that P.C. Harvey went down that passage, he could have felt vulnerable that night, perhaps he decided to give it a miss that night, only one thing would guarantee that he went down the passage, and that would be if he could have entered the square and joined the watchman in a cup of tea!! But he wasn't allowed to go into the square, so how can you be so sure he went down the passage? Rick |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 12:57 pm | | Joan
I did reply to your note earlier but it never appeared?
Ar regards Stride it is my belief that she was with the same man all night, and he was obviously fond of her for it was no quick 'trick' between prostitute and client, he paid for her drinks in the pub, bought her flowers and grapes, and the witness descriptions seem to show a couple who genuinely wanted to spend some time together. Stride and her boyfriend, Michael Kidney, had rowed again and she had left him, and I believe he was the man following them that night who was seen to assault Stride outside the club, whilst her gentleman waited across the road and then ran off. I would guess that he was a married man and this is the reason he never came forward, or wanted to get involved in the fracas between Stride and Kidney.
As for Eddowes I remain convinced that she was heading straight back to Aldgate High Street after more money and was then taken from there to Mitre Square by the killer. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 01:10 pm | | Robin & Warwick
yes I couldn't agree more, it would only have been human nature for the patrolling PC to have bunkered down at the tea warehouse with the watchman in front of a fire, drinking tea, and I for one always had the impression that the PC's and the watchman's evidence was far too 'pat'. For a start the watchman admitted that the door of the warehouse was open, which it shouldn't have been at that time of night;
However I would have thought patrolling PC's - even in those days - would have some sort of control mechanisms to measure their patrol. I know later on the small police boxes were introduced where a patrolling PC would log in everytime he passed, but perhaps the police organized their patrols then so that individual PC's would log other PC's at certain times and places?
Anyone have an answer for this? |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 01:22 pm | | Richard
quite right, she appears not to have been an 'unfortunate' but my point was that she headed back in that direction because she did indeed want to meet someone again, the same someone who had given her the cash earlier to enable her to get drunk, so I see it that she would have wanted to go into the square with this someone but probably thought she was going to be given more cash. I can't remember whether it was you or someone else who pointed out that Eddowes couldn't possibly have known what time she would be released from BPS, so that closes out the idea of a pre-arranged meeting, therefore she must have been heading towards a destination rather than a person, sure that the person would be at the destination, which he probably was and then he took her off to the square. There is of course another scenario that no one has really considered yet, that there was a telephone at BPS and that senior police officers involved in the case also had telephones at their homes, and that one of those senior police officers could have been aware of the hour of Eddowe's release through a simple telephone call. |
|
|
|
|
