|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Did the Ripper know Mary Kelly and Kate Eddowes?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Did the Ripper know Mary Kelly and Kate Eddowes?
Author: Gail Henry-Dowle
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 12:12 am |        | Having an interest in the FBI and its study of
psychological profiling, I was wondering if Jack knew
some of his victims. If he was a native to the East End,
I am sure that he had seen all of these women at one
time or another but maybe he had a casual or maybe
more than casual relationship with Mary or Kate.
My reason for this is that both of these victims had
mutilations about their faces. I have read that some
killers will destroy a victims face in order to
depersonalize them. Whether Jack was friends or at
least aquainted with these women mght have a bearing
on their facial mutilations. If that is the case, it would
seem that he knew Mary Kelly VERY well.
One wonders if they had Pimps back then. Pimps are
known to "rough up" their women if their evening take
isnt't up to standard. Anyone else have a theory along
this line? Drop me an e mail or message me. |
Author: Jill
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 01:30 am | | Hello Gail
I think it is very doubtfull he had a "close" acquantance with all victims. There could be a chance he picked them beforehand, just by sight. Being the pimp of those girls, maybe goes a bit too far, in my opinion, since pimps keep a leash on their prostitutes by playing their lover. And I have much doubts that he could perform such role for a too long time, with such a sexual frustration.
One of the victims has the appearance of closer acquantance, MJK. This has been discussed on several boards, of which one mentions the face mutilations (specific victims-the ripper victims(general): Wolf April 25,1999 4:14pm). Some other mutilations can suggest he felt some affections of admiration for her. But if they knew each other I will be more inclined to believe he was a friend of a friend of a... whom she thought maybe intruiging, but did not know emotionaly intimate.
Someone else on another board (sorry, I don't remember where) thought to relate the slashing of the visages to the accident of being seen, like the assault on Stride was witnessed and like George Hutchinson keeping an eye on MJK, and so let his victims pay for this frustration.
Still another board discussed the possibility that JtR maybe had an appointment with Eddowes, because there are many questions about her being terribly drunk (where did she get the money?) and her not going straight home after being released from jail (it is not certain if she was a regular prostitute, if at all).
You can also ask yourself how his picking of the victims occured: spur of the moment, favourite route, picked woman out few days beforehand, ...
Since I'm just a beginner in this, I don't have a clear opinion on all of this. I'm still walking in the mist.
Jill |
Author: Gail Henry-Dowle
Tuesday, 20 July 1999 - 02:00 pm | | Hi Jill
Thanks for your message. When i suggested that he
might have "known" the victims, I was suggesting as i
think you were, that he had probably seen them around
the area. Maybe they might have known his name in
passing or heard it from someone else. Maybe they
saw him in the Ten Bells or the Britannia. At any rate,
he could have fantasized about them. If his mind was
not sound, he could have built relationship within his
own mind as today's stalkers do. If rebuffed, they can
become quite violent. I am not even sure if there was a
Pimp thing going on in Victorian London. It is hard to
judge the past by the present if you know what I mean.
Do you have any theories as to what became of the
Ripper? If so, I would like to hear them. Feel free to
send me an e mail or another post on the mesaage
board.
Gail |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 21 July 1999 - 05:33 am | | Hello Gail-I asked myself the same question a week ago (what happened to Jack?). I tried a brainstorm on what could have happened, before deciding what made sense and what not. The result of this brainstorm is a very long post in the general topic "What happened to Jack?" under Modern Musings. It's not a one-side theory, but maybe a guideline if we were to search record files (hospitals, jails, asylums) or death certificates following the discussion "Did Jack contract blood poisoning?". I'm not going to repeat it here, because it is too long.
Jill |
Author: RED DEMON
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 12:23 am | | Hello All!
Did the Ripper know Mary Kelly or Catharine Eddowes? Personally, I think the question should be 'Did the Ripper know any of his victims'. And to answer this, we'd have to know who his victims were. Personally, I think his first murder victim in Whitechapel was Martha Tabram. I also think that the attacks on Annie Milwood (2-25-88) and Ada Wilson (3-28-88)were fumbled attempts by the Ripper, who at this point was not experienced in the ways of murder. However, I do feel that the Ripper had killed before, perhaps even years earlier, and possibly not in or near Whitechapel. And if that's the case, he almost certainly knew the victim.
Experience has taught us that a serial killer's first victim is often someone they have contact with in life...Not necessarily someone extremely close to them, but someone they see on a regular basis...In Ted Bundy's case, it was a girl from one of his classes. In the case of the Green River Killer, who was never caught, all the victims were prostitutes, except for the first one, who was a waitress. The killer was more than likely a regular customer in her diner. Unfortunately, the investigators in charge didn't recognize this soon enough for it to do any good.
As Annie Milwood survived her attack, and didn't recognize the attacker, she was quite likely not his first victim. I also think that Martha Tabram may have been his first victim killed with a knife, although it quite possibly might not be the case.
But as far as did the Ripper know Mary Kelly and Catharine Eddowes... I think he may have approached them as a client and in search of prospective victims previously. I think that when he found Mary Kelly he was specifically looking for a girl with a place to go to for privacy, as the area was swarming with cops and amatuer detectives. The lapse of time between the 'double event' and Kelly's murder shows an apprehension on the killer's part. He was scared. However, I'm sure that November 9th wasn't his first day back out hunting. It may have taken him days to find the right girl.
Well, this posting wasn't as coherent as I would have liked, nor as complete. And I am quite tired, so I will stop here. Please let me know what you think. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 03:34 am | | Hello RED
(wasn't it you who first mentioned that the Ripper might have cut himself in Mitre Square, and used the apron to wrap his wound?)
Anyway, this idea about 'did the Ripper knows his victim(s)' is a subject that will, I think, always be with us.
We cannot determine if this is the case, there are those who might prefer to think so based on their 'take' on who the Ripper was.
For example, the only real Ripper victims we can reasonably rely on being 'his work' are Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes. Taking all evidence into account, these three have by far the most similarities. Kelly is the most obvious choice for #4, I mean, who the hell else would go to that extreme, to carve up a person.
But beyond those 4 we have no other real candidates. Now, it gets down to your own personal view of who the Ripper was, or what type of killer he was, or what his motive was, all these issues come into play in order to take you to the next possible choice of victim. Now we move beyond the known evidence and into the realm of speculation.
I think Stride was....because if this...
or, I think Tabram was....because of that....
or, I think Wilson, Millwood or even Coles, McKenzie etc....because of....
And so it goes......
This is where our own interpretation of who/what the Ripper was comes into play, speaking for myself, a person who has no real suspect in mind, can't step across that boundry.
I for one accept the possibility that Wilson, Millwood & Tabram may represent the evolutionary technique of a killer, but some say the sloppy frantic attack on Tabram followed by the systematic almost methodical slaughter of Nichols is too much of a change in technique, almost like there's a 'missing link' somewhere, in the evolutionary sense.
Then, the argument that Stride's murderer was interrupted, so we can't make the same judgements with her, well I don't buy that, the location, the obvious public display of aggression, the method of attack,...etc..etc...firmly rule her out in my opinion. But in saying that, I'm starting to betray my inner feeling's of who Jack was or wasn't.
Then we can look at McKenzie or Coles, some would say, absolutly not, those were done too late....Really? well whoever gives that as an objection is making a judgement call based on there own interpretation of who Jack was.
So, 'did Jack know any of his victims?' - I think we have to limit this question to the 'Definite(?) three' or the 'Likely four'
To apply this question to any others is to start making an assumption, on top of assumption....and we know where that leads.....
Ok, enough said.....
Regards, Jon |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 11:31 am | | Hi All,
I'm enjoying these last few postings. Thanks guys.
For me, I guess Eddowes is the 'best' victim that sums up what Jack was about. If we could come to some real understanding of the circumstances surrounding her meeting with her killer, I think we should be able to learn a lot about this early serial killer. Then we could build up the bigger picture, backwards and forwards in time, and start making more reasoned arguments for and against other 'Jack' victims.
I still think our Jack and Catharine made an 'appointment' with death that fateful night. I'm sure Eddowes wanted out of that police cell for some reason. Otherwise why didn't she pretend to be in a drunken stupour for longer and stay put? Instead she made a point of asking the time and voluntarily left the relative warmth and comfort of a free bed for the night. Had Jack pre-arranged the meeting in Mitre Square, knowing a fast escape route to Goulston Street (and then away home), just a couple of minutes' walk away (I've actually timed this), he could have been away as quick as lightning into the night. (While the street girls would have known the best nooks and crannies for entertaining clients, convenient escape routes would be more of a priority with their killer.)
I have so many questions going through my mind here. For instance, did Jack also have some other hold over Eddowes (the promise of a good deal of money maybe, or a new life?)
Did he school her in what to tell people that night? Like telling the police her name was 'Nothing'(tying neatly in with the last word of the Goulston St graffito?), then later giving her name as Mary Ann Kelly. Was this a well-known alias of hers, or was it a muddled 'clue' Jack told her to give regarding his next intended victim?
But, on the other hand, if this was so carefully orchestrated, how could Jack be sure she would even manage to meet him if she was roaring drunk earlier in the evening?
Luck was definitely with him by the end of that night, especially if he was involved in the death of Stride earlier.
If Stride WAS an imperfect ripper job, Eddowes certainly made up for it, didn't she? Wow, he must have felt jolly pleased with himself in the days following that one. Did any letters arrive denying responsibility for Stride?
Love,
Caz |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 22 July 1999 - 07:04 pm | | "The Juwes are the men..."
"The Jewish Working Men..."
He made sure. Get it, Jon?
David |
Author: Jon
Friday, 23 July 1999 - 03:30 am | | I have to confess Dave, you caught me in one of my less enlightened moments.....
Sorry, Dave .....no I don't...
Jon |
Author: Jon
Friday, 23 July 1999 - 09:24 am | | .....and he said, 'Let there be light'..
Aha!....so, Dave you read into the Graffito as 'Jack' saying, 'Bacause I was interrupted, I had to kill another (Mitre Sq), ergo, the Jewes are to blame'.
Thats one interpretation.
- How many others do we have?
- How do we interpret two double negatives in one statement?
- How do we know it relates to the crimes at all?
- Mitre Sq was behind Jewish premises, is this what it refers to? - no need to implicate Stride at all.
- Why would Jack blame the Jewes (refering to Berner St.) time studies on the events in Berner St. are questioning the original theory that he was disturbed, that infact he was possibly long gone before Diemschutz arrival.
I'll have to defer to Dave Yost, if we need go any deeper, the events in Berner St. are a study within a study.
Rather than build a theory based on one interpretation of a 'double-negative' statement, I'd sooner stay with tangible evidence.
The Berner St. location, the time, the openness, the noisey agression, witnesses, ....this was a reckless assault, more like spontaneous agression, than what we have become to recognize as the work of the Ripper.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 25 July 1999 - 09:05 am | | Dear Everyone,
My poor computer suffered an almost terminal breakdown at the beginning
of June but now I am glad to say it has done a General McArthur and
returned!
I was surprised to see all the interest on the Missing Key debate. I have
always been very interested in this and covered it quite comprehensively in
my book.
For what its worth here are my thoughts.
What kind of lock?
As far as I am aware there was only one type of lock mentioned as being
fitted to MJK door, and that of a 'spring bolt' variety. Linus Yale launched
his lock into the world in 1853, however it was very expensive. It also used
the barrel principal which does away with a through key channel. In other
words you cannot peep through the keyhole of a Yale lock.
The type of lock I believe was fitted to the door was referred to as a night
latch (I have a sample) This looked just like a normal lock, had a through key
channel, so you could look through the keyhole, and was very very cheap.
The bolt was spring loaded and shot home automatically on the door being
pulled to. On the inside of the lock there was a knurled knob which when
turned withdrew the bolt. This knob could also be slid down to lock the bolt
in the open position, leaving the door on the latch.
From the outside the lock appeared just like a normal mortice lock, unlike a
Yale type which is readily identifiable as such.
Next the broken panes of glass. The window was a sash type which when
closed gave you four panes of glass, two on top and two below.
The broken panes I believe to be : top right and bottom left for the following
reasons.
At the inquest Bowyer gave evidence. He describes how he found the body.
He says:
"I went round the corner and there was a broken window in the farthest
window..."
It is quite clear that he is telling you the position of the broken pane in relation
to his position coming round the corner, however he has made an error in
referring to the pane of glass as a 'window' which causes some confusion,
seeing this Inspector Charles Ledger interrupts.
"I have made plans produced and they are correct plans of the premises"
Thomas Bowyer now continues his evidence but now using the plans to
indicate which pane of glass he is referring to.
"I refer to plan and I mean the farthest pane of the first window the small
one." Again he uses the expression 'farthest' to indicate exactly which pane
he is referring to, in both instances, before and after using the plans, the
relevant pane is referred to as the farthest which strongly indicates he is fixing
the position of the relevant pane using his position coming round the corner.
And that pane is the bottom left.
If as someone has suggested he was using the position of himself relevant to
the plan to fix the position of the pane, ie indicating bottom right, then surely
his first sentence would have been:
" I went round the corner and there was a broken window in the nearest
window" He didn't and it wasn't.
As for the other broken pane it must have been top right as that is the only
pane through which it is possible to turn the knob to draw back the bolt.
This indicates this was the pane that was broken first some time before the
argument at the end of October. We can deduce this because Barnett stated
that he used to reach through and open the door, since he left Millers Court
on the night of the October row and did not return (to inhabit) it would not
have been possible for him to have put this theory to the test before hand.
From this we can deduce the bottom left pane was broken on the night of the
October fight.
It is not a simple matter to open the door doing this. I built a mock up of the
corner of MJKs room and tried it for myself. Bearing in mind the danger
from broken glass, the only way it was practical was to stand on the window
cill, hold the drain pipe with your right hand and reach in with your left, it is
not easy.
Since the windows were boarded up shortly after the body was removed,
and there is no mention of it, I think it can be said that Abberline was quoting
Barnett when he referred to the action as being easy, rather than through
experimention.
I was very impressed with the photo enhancement, but would ask you to
consider two points.
1. Enhancement done on anything but the original print is largely a waste
of time.
2. No body knows when the famous exterior shot was taken, it could
have been twenty years later for all we know - enhancing a photo you don't
know the origins of seems like a pointless exercise to me.
Like Schwarzenegger "I'm back!!"
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 25 July 1999 - 09:08 am | | Dear Everyone
Yup Wrong board!!!!
Bob Hinton |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 25 July 1999 - 07:08 pm | | G'day Caz, David, Jon, Bob, everyone.
Goodonya Bob!
Yeah Caz, following that line of thought and the name Catharine gave in the police station, I reckon you're onto something with the 'coached' replies and stuff and the grafitti. Catharine giving her name as 'Nothing' and then the Juwes being mentioned as not having anything to do with her death.
I hope that makes sense, I'm still a bit jet shagged at the moment. Sorry.
Jules |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 05:20 am | | Hi, Bob:
Nice to see you back and contributing. Your point is well taken that photo enhancement would be best using the original of the Miller's Court photograph. As for when the photograph was taken, Stewart Evans has said that it was taken on the day of the murder.
Chris George |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 03:17 pm | | I might be a little late here.
But Caz you may be interested if you are not aware of it already of the Quote in the latest A-Z p123 that eddowes thought she knew Jack & she was back to get the reward ... Did she see Jack , Blackmail him ,then get drunk on the proceeds , only to be murdered when he was supposed to pay her off (for good) ... JJ. |
Author: anon
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 03:21 pm | | | Oh dear, not another fantasist. |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 04:56 pm | | Anon
You're right spectulation is idle.
But fun!
The quote is there. The A-Z is the only book I've found it in. Its implications (if its true) are dramatic. ( Its apparently taken from newspapers not testimony ... so is a lot of what we take as fact in the case. ) Do I believe it ... no not without much more supporting evidence. jj. |
Author: anon
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 09:40 pm | | | Why be sensible, when you can let your imagination run riot? Hasn't this subject already suffered enough of that? |
Author: anon
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 01:54 am | | anon, why offer more than a sentence or two of whining, when you can post a full paragraph of real information, so others may criticize your views?
Or, is this all you're good for?
anon |
Author: Kevin
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 04:27 am | | The name of the board is did Jack know MK and KE. Maybe the answer to this question si whether Mary knew Kate.
I can't remember now but wasn't there something about Kate living right nearby Mary at some point. Maybe I read it on one of these boards, or maybe it has no merit, but... They both liked to drink...
Maybe Jack was also from that immediate neighborhood (if Kate really was a neighbor of Mary's).
I have to admit that it is interesting. Why leave jail if you have no place to sleep, especially after you had sobered up.
Somehow I don't buy blackmail either. Would you fool around with Jack if you suspected him? Even if you were desperate?
Maybe Jack carried around a bottle? Maybe everyone always knew you could get a good drink with Jack. Who better to see especially if you need a drink and have no money. And what better way to get rid of a terrible hangover than to have another drink. Especially if Jack had said "Maybe we can meet later over at Mitre Square, I'll be there at around..." Kate wakes up and thinks "God I need a drink... Wait a minute Jack said he would be at Mitre Square at... Guard, what time is it?"
The same could be true with Mary... They were all confirmed drunks weren't they?
If you could link Mary and Kate I think Jack might end up being a neighborhood guy who you could count on for a drink.... Or maybe not. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 05:24 am | | Hi y'all.
KEVIN: Althought interesting, most of your post is too spectulative for me to comment on, but one sentence is a jewel of insight.
'Kate wakes up and thinks "God I need a drink" ...'
I saw a bit of everything when I bartended - your scenario fits the natural reaction of a habitual drunk. Having another drink to prevent or treat a hang-over is a common topic of conversation in bars every night. Folks compete to come up with the best recipe for a remedy.
Contrary to some posters here, not everyone considers jail a safe comfy haven. Jail cells induce panic attacks in some folks ... Sleeping outside is a good antidote for claustrophobic feelings ... and alcohol easily deludes folks into believing they're warm when the weather's cold.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 10:48 am | | Here is a cognition I concocted concerning cognizance of his victims by the Ripper:
You've got to figure the Ripper is a sexual predator, right? So, his instinct to victimize is piqued by someone appearing to him as a victim. He walks around Whitechapel talking to prostitutes until he finds one who appeals to him as a victim, then he kills her. Meeting someone who seems like a victim to him is what pulls his trigger, otherwise he has only a rather low-level desire to kill. Per the evidence, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were in immediately desperate financial condition when they were killed--all needed money right away--Eddowes to replace funds given to her in trust by John Kelly she lost, the rest to have a place to sleep for the night. When he met these people, they variously were behaving desperately, and this is what caused him to kill them.
Tabram and Stride would be a different matter; although both were poor people, neither had an immediatley desperate fianancial condition, and thus possibly were not Ripper victims.
How's that sound?
David |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 03:51 pm | | Hullo, all -
My move having been completed, I'm taking a few moments to look over the boards before "The Simpsons" starts; more reasoned thoughts in the days ahead, I promise. Now, to the topic at hand. . .
Given the limited range of the Ripper's killing field and the relativey abbreviated (so far as we know) time span of the murders, it is almost a certainty that Jack the Ripper knew his victims, just as he knew the Whitechapel area. But the word "knew" covers a range of probabilities, and here is where even the most careful reasoning can easily spin into fantasy, as noted above. Did Jack know the canonical victims only by sight? Was he a regular punter with a more "intimate" knowledge of the women? Was he a Timothy Donovan, a Ted Stanley or a George Hutchinson to any of them - and if to one, then to the others?
An interesting proposition. The stumbling block, as I see it, is that no-one in 1888 or 1999 has ever put forth a Ripper candidate with proven personal links to each of the canonical victims. But having said that, a further problem presents itself.
Say we posit Hutchinson as the Ripper, and convince ourselves we've a good circumstantial case against him for the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. Well and good - but how do we tie him in with Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes? There's no statement from anyone placing him at any of the other murder scenes and no witness sighting that couldn't also fit a half-dozen other men, so we are forced to fall back on a tissue of "could haves" and "might bes." The police at the time never managed to find a suspect who was known in common to all of the victims, and I doubt it was for lack of trying. In fairness, however, it has been argued that the very thought of the canonical victims as the ONLY ONES prey to Jack's knife is a fallacy that renders the case insoluble.
With regards to the "blackmailing" bit mentioned by John Dixon, it's well to remember that the supposed "I have come back to earn the reward for the Whitechapel Murderer" quote of Catharine Eddowes appeared only in one newspaper, with no further corroboration or provenance; we can use it as a prop for fantasy, but we are really not justified in using it as evidence, since it cannot be proven Eddowes ever said such a thing. And even if she did say it - well, it is only words set down in ink. We have no idea the tone of voice the words (if said) were delivered in. Eddowes might have tossed off the remark as a flippant retort to the lodging-house keeper's "Oi! 'Aven't seen you round for a bit - what you back for, then?" In that case, it's only a joke and brings us no nearer to the Ripper.
As far as Eddowes wanting out of her jail cell - I have no doubt I am wrong, but I do not believe the City police were in the habit of keeping drunks locked up overnight, as opposed to their stricter Met counterparts. Eddowes may not have been able to doss down in a comfy cell that night, and her repeated query as to the time might have been no more than idle wondering how many hours she had spent under the influence.
Kevin - the point about Eddowes and Kelly being neighbours has been raised before, and has been, I believe, largely dismissed. You'll find a longer discussion of it than I care to go into here on either the Eddowes or Kelly boards (sorry I can't be more specific).
I'm happy to be back, and hope I have not bored you all to tears with this posting.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Julian
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 08:32 pm | | G'day CM, Janice, everyone,
When was the first instance of a reward being offered publicised? The earliest I've found was for 500 pound by the Lord Mayor of London on October 2nd, 2 days after Catharine was murdered.
Jules |
Author: anon
Sunday, 01 August 1999 - 10:17 pm | | The local M.P. (for Whitechapel), Samuel Montagu, offered to pay a £100 reward for the discovery and conviction of the murderer(s) on 10 September 1888. The Home Office objected to this.
In mid-September the Vigilance Committee held a meeting at The Crown, 74 Mile End Road, and decided that they would offer a reward for the discovery of the author(s) of the 'late atrocities in the East End of London...' The Home Office again objected to this.
There was a flurry of publicity and letters to the press in mid-September 1888, over this, and the Home Office was criticised for failing to offer a reward. The Home Office letter of refusal dated 17 September 1888 was published in the press, various papers, at the time. |
Author: Caz
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 02:27 am | | Hi All,
So rumours of a possible reward among the street folk would have been rife by the night of the double event. And as David has so rightly said, the victims (together with most of the street population I shouldn't wonder!) would have been desperate to earn money any way they could.
What better than the suggestion of a juicy reward for information about the ripper? Perhaps these ignorant poor thought they would even be paid for duff info?
Catharine is said to have had no fear of being murdered, if we believe the report (also from p123 of the A-Z), and I've been reading from 'Mayhew's London' that the street folk, male and female, were brought up with a strict code of standing up for themselves in any fight (especially with policemen, interestingly enough) so maybe she thought herself invulnerable, and was living in a bit of a drunken fantasy world of escapism and fortune-hunting. Pity reality stepped in.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 07:28 am | | Dear All,
A few points about spending nights in police cells. It used to be an accepted thing that if you were over the limit and the police locked you up they released you in the morning with no charges and no hard feelings. That way you weren't always tripping over frozen dead bodies in the morning and the drunks were kept off the streets. However since strict custody records and the entire correctness thing this has now gone.
It was however an accepted thing that if you were picked up in the cell you stayed. We know it was quite common in this instance because Kelly said that when he heard Catherine had been picked up he knew she was safe until morning. That was why when he heard that another body had been found he didn't worry unduly, thinking her safe in a cell.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Caz
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 08:53 am | | Thanks for that Bob.
This confirms all my instincts with regard to Catharine's set purpose of getting out of that cell come hell or high water.
Was it just to find another drink? Then why the obsession with the time? Was it blackmail she was about? I doubt it somehow. She would have surely been nervous and not unafraid if she really thought she was meeting Jack. I'd love to have followed her as she made her way to Mitre Square, apparently unafraid of bumping into the Whitechapel murderer. Was she totally reckless as to her safety and was this because she thought she was about to meet her 'saviour'? Maybe it was Jack himself who was feeding her (false?) information about the killer, and promised her some more that night, enough to enable her to put in for her reward? (Or so she thought.)
That would have explained her desire to keep an appointment.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 02 August 1999 - 01:24 pm | | Bob -
Thank you very much for that bit about drunks and overnight accommodations; I'm glad a man of your experience is able to set me straight on these matters. I believe, however, it was Martin Fido who stated that the City was in the habit of turning out their drunks as soon as they were reasonably sober ; my Ripper books (shocking to admit!) are still packed away, and I've not yet been able to locate the proper reference.
Caz - I've said this before, but I tend to believe portraying Catharine Eddowes as wanting to get out of her cell "come hell or high water" is putting too much stress on the scant record we have of the dialogue between her and PC Hutt. We are, of course, only trading opinion, and I would never dismiss yours out of hand. However, here is how I see it (with apologies for any inaccuracies, as I am quoting extemporare):
Eddowes is picked up after a massive drunk. She comes to in a cell, and has a general idea where she is. She promised John Kelly she'd be back, and so she asks -
"When can I go?" and is told she can leave shortly. She says "I can take care of myself" to indicate she's as sober as she is about to get.
Twenty or thirty minutes pass, with no further inquiry from Eddowes as to the time of her release; indeed, she seems to pass the time quietly singing to herself. Along comes PC Hutt, who decides to turn her out. Eddowes, naturally wondering how long she's been in chokey, asks -
"What time is it?"
Hutt, of course, being a copper, thinks he's a pretty good idea of what she really wants to know, and so replies -
"Too late for you to get any more drink." Perhaps he says this with a low chuckle or a lift of the eyebrows?
Eddowes, slightly put out by this non-answer, asks again -
"Well, what time is it?" ("you bloody fool," one can almost hear her add).
And so Hutt tells her that it is almost 1.00am, Eddowes wails that she'll get a good hiding when she gets home, and Hutt snorts that it will serve her right. A cheery "good night, old cock," and off Eddowes goes all unknowing to her terrible fate.
Pure speculation - even, perhaps, unwarranted presumption to interpret the motives of people a hundred years gone from their meagre words. Still, I consider the foregoing a more prosaic explanation of Eddowes' words and actions in Bishopsgate Police Station, and, being ordinary, more likely to be nearer the mark.
Or I could be wrong, and you right, Caz! The only one who could tell us is Katy Eddowes herself, and she is not speaking to anyone but Pamela Ball. . .
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 03 August 1999 - 01:42 am | | Hi CM,
Of course you are right that we shall probably never know. I just use my feminine intuition to read between the lines and 'see' situations, sometimes to good effect, though admittedly not always!
Unpack those ripper books quick!
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
