Amelia Farmer did not testify that Chapman "took to prostitution at night."
Of course she did Simon. It was, of course, a delicate subject but it was perfectly clear. Let's look at it again shall we:
The Coroner - Is it correct that she got money in the streets? (i.e. Is it correct that she was a prostitute?)
The Witness - I am afraid that she was not particular how she earned her living. She has told me that she was out late at night sometimes." (i.e. I'm afraid she was and I know this because she told me.)
But is it likely that he would have killed her out on the street in the early hours of the morning with people like Elizabeth Long and others around going to work etc? Surely it's overwhelmingly likely that she was killed in situ and any blood found in the passageway came from the killer as he made his escape?
Basically why he would "choke hold" her and drag her out the back.
There was no blood in the passage.
Chapman was probably led off Hanbury Street to get her away from prying eyes,possibly with the offer of accommodation now and money at a later time.
Reckon Eddowes was dragged into Mitre Square from one of the Mitre Street houses.
The police did not recognise any of the C5. Nor did they recognise them once they had their names.
This is such a bad point.
Did "The police", whatever you mean by that, all troop into the mortuary one by one to try and identify the bodies of these victims?
Identity was proved by someone who knew the deceased well. No-one asked every single police officer to visit the mortuary to see if they recognised any of these women from the streets. Such an effort would have been pointless in any case unless the officers also knew the real names of the women and could positively identify them by their real name.
Whether the women were prostitutes or not was not the main issue to be resolved in the investigation (and the answer could, in any event, be gleaned from people who knew them, as occurred).
Except that, as I posted earlier, Dr Phillips said he made a search of the passage and found no blood. I suspect the report that Simon posted was inaccurate, like the reports of blood on the fence at 25 or of the message left by the killer.
It's possible she was carried unconscious through the passage, of course (or was given a piggy back by her killer, or even that they romped to the back yard in Fatal Attraction style). But it's always easier to get a living person to move than a dead one. And she had already said "yes", according to Mrs Long.
I missed your post.
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
The Manchester Guardian, 10th September 1888, confirmed the bloodstains in the passage of 29 Hanbury Street whilst offering the most sublimely ridiculous explanation for their presence—
“There were some marks of blood observable in the passage, but it is now known that these were caused during the work of removal of some packing cases, the edges of which accidentally came in contact with the blood upon the spot from which the unhappy victim was removed.”
And if you believe that, I know a recently deposed Nigerian prince who is eager to put £27 million into your bank account.
This probably won't surprise you, Simon, but I don't see anything too implausible in that explanation. It's at least as believable as the doctor missing the bloodstains, or for some inexplicable reason lying about not seeing any. If they only appeared after he made his search then that explains both his statement and the news reports.
If the packing case is too hard to swallow, how about the blood was deposited in the passage as the body was moved, or on someone's boots as they trudged out?
Why drag or carry anyone anywhere ? Dragging someone through a passageway in a choke hold to the backyard of Hanbury St only to kill her there increases the risk of her shouting out, or if carried being seen. And why drag the victim out of a house on Mitre Sq only to kill her in said Sq ? The same logic applies, and wouldn't it be safer in the house. Also if the police kept tabs or arrested every poor woman who had to prostitute herself from time to time in Whitechapel the jails and police files would be overflowing. These where very desperate times indeed.
Having just read the post from yesterday I am left utterly speechless from some of the lack of reasonable logic used, nor the selective use of sources to support ideas.
Let me be honest here and say I have not read the latest update to Simon's work. This is because I consider that constant updates and recharging for what is to a great extent the same information is not for me in the digital age.
Therefore I can only use the information provided here.
Simon suggests that the body was carried along the passageway, this he supports with part of an article from the Evening News 8th September, this is a journalists report only.
He also supplies a quote from the Manchester Guardian 10th September; however it should be noted that he rejects outright the explanation offered and makes disparaging remarks about any who would consider it.
If there is any other evidence, it is not supplied.
Is there any source data which allows us to examine the suggestion made by Simon?
Well let's see what we do know. From the inquest we have the following:
1. Phillips says there is much blood around the body, this is contrary to what the quote provided by Simon say. He also says there is blood on the fencing and there is NONE in the passageway.
2. Inspector Chandler says there is no blood apart from around the body and on the fencing and wall.
3. The body is at the mortuary before 7am, this is the time Chandler arrives there.
One point we do not know is what time did the Journalist arrive on site and at what point was he allowed to view the passage way? It is I think highly unlikely this was before the body was removed from site.
We have already had one explanation for blood rejected outright, are there others?
Well of course there are:
A. The most obvious explanation is the blood dripped from the body as it was removed down the passageway, if it was in a shell at this point, blood could drip from the underside if it had been placed in blood in the yard or it may just have leaked out.
B. The blood came from the shoes of those who had been in the yard.
C. There was no blood, pure speculation on the part of the Journalist, certainly not unknown, has I have found from the Nichols case.
Let's just take a look at the Evening News and see if there is any more information there.
And yes there is. In a section headed "Special Account" we find the following:
"The latest information goes to show quite clearly that the murder was actually committed in the back-yard of No. 18, Hanbury-street. The front door of this house is never locked at night, as some of the lodgers come home very late at night, and others have to go to their work early in the morning; and for their convenience the door is always left on the latch. "
And in the next paragraph:
"The other theory, that the murder was committed in the street, and then concealed in the yard of No. 18, is disproved by the fact that, whereas there is a horrible mass of clotted blood lying on the spot where the body was found there are no blood-stains whatever, either in the passage of the house or anywhere else in the neighbourhood. "
Now this report gets the address wrong quoting both 28 and 18 ( in both quotes above) Hanbury street. However such mistakes in these early accounts often are made.
It seems clear that the original quote supplied is of very low reliability and why Simon prefers such sources I struggle to understand.
Finally the comments that working on the streets does not mean some form of at least casual prostitution are on the face of somewhat strange.