What 5 Questions Would You Like Answered?

[Monty]

Hi Lynn,

I'm figuring you aren't familiar with prostitutes and their transactions.

They take the money up front and pocket it. The rifling is a sign of retrieval.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

According to Long's testimony she saw her at 5:30 and was certain of the time as the clock chimed as she rounded the corner. Regardless, she clearly saw her soliciting prior to her death which means she was no doubt soliciting when she encountered her murderer.

From her inquest testimony:


"Maybe not strictly soliciting"? What was she being asked for, a breath mint??

If the doctors time of death is correct Long could not have seen her

[C. F. Leon]

Hi Abby



Mylett and McKenzie both had money, and I`m sure Coles had some nearby her body.

Relatively nearby, like 20 meters or so, if I have the right scale. Not right next to her body, as usually implied.

General question: did any of the OTHER victims have rings or other possible items of 'value' that were NOT missing? I'm not talking about possible money retrieved, I'll expect THAT (but didn't Stride have some coins that she had earned earlier?). If so, why were only Chapman's rings taken? Did Barnett report any items removed from the room (other than the 'burned clothing, which he wouldn't have known about in detail)?.

[Ally]

If the doctors time of death is correct Long could not have seen her

And if determining TOD was in anyway scientificially precise in 1888 I would, say there was a valid argument to be made. Considering it basically amounted to "Cor, she's good and cold, she musta been dead for two hours!", I'll pass on giving TOD determinations any significant weight.

[lynn cates]

This is the way we wash our . . .

Hello Ally. Thanks.

"For starters, define "recent".

Now you're talking. I should think the medicos meant since last bath/washing. And in Polly's case, not too long.

"If we assume that Kate's last successful solicitation was sometime prior to her being arrested, after which she'd found the time to go and get drunk, she'd had more than sufficient time afterwards to clean herself up and more than enough items on her person to accomplish that."

Fair observation. She left John, about 2.30? OK. Pinched about 8.30. Not sure how long she solicited before a transaction. Also, not sure how long she drank. Plenty of time to wash. But where? Polly had access to the lodging house for bathing, but Kate never returned to Cooney's. But I am open to suggestion--even though Kate was dirty and not clean, like Polly.

"As for Liz, she likewise may have had significant time from her last successful solicitation to her murder to do a sufficient job of wiping herself down or she may well not have had any success at all."

I consider the latter most likely.

"Soliciting doesn't come with a guarantee of a pay day. . ."

Indeed. Especially when the prostitute says "Not tonight. Perhaps some other night."

". . . and may well be why she was seen in the presence of so many different men."

If they WERE different men.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

prostitutes and their transactions

Hello Neil. Thanks.

"I'm figuring you aren't familiar with prostitutes and their transactions."

Certainly not. Married, you know.

"They take the money up front and pocket it."

Often the case, I suppose.

"The rifling is a sign of retrieval."

Could be. But Polly was not rifled, nor yet Liz. Possible there are other explanations?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

emendation

Hello Trevor.

"If the doctor's time of death is correct Long could not have seen her."

Indeed. But please to recall that Dr. Phillips emended his statement at inquest--to allow for the later time.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn.

Coetus er.. Riptus interuptus maybe? Or maybe with Nichols she wasn't rifled because it was his first attempt? He was nervous or what have you.

[RivkahChaya]

On your first point, it seems like emptying your belongings before coetus an unlikely and impractical thing. How long did those encounters usually last I wonder? And why a neat pile? On your third point, weren't all the belongings she had all on the ground? Everything fell out? On your final point, two sides? Ha, we should be so lucky were there only two to contend with. Many blessings.

We don't have a photograph. It's just the opinion of the police that the pile was "neat." Was this such a neat pile that several police remarked on it, because it was almost ritualistic, or was this just a word that one cop pulled out of the air, because he was just trying to express that they were not deliberately scattered. Maybe in his experience when people were mugged, but didn't have much, muggers often threw down their belongings in anger, and he was just trying to say that this was not the situation here.

I'm just saying this, because people seem to mention the "neat pile" a lot, and I wonder if the police who documented the scene would be surprised at the significance we give it.

Also, for what it's worth, it is very hard to take a ring off another person's finger, unless the ring is too big in the first place. I understand that Chapman acquired the rings recently, so maybe they didn't fit her, but if they did, she almost certainly took them off voluntarily. One of the reasons murder victims have their fingers cut off to steal rings is that it's so hard to take off another person's ring.

Hello David. Thanks.

"How could she buy food and drink without money, please?
If she was hungry and thirsty, she had to find some quickly."

Precisely. And that is why she should have returned home to John at once. She did not.

Cheers.
LC

You don't have to buy food. You can scrounge, steal, or beg for it. She'd been homeless for a long time. She probably knew when restaurants threw things out, when bakers opened, milk delivery started, and where people who were soft touches lived. Is it possible she was going to stake out a dairy delivery truck, and steal a quart of milk? Or beg for day-old bread from a bakery when it opened-- which is to say, when the bakers arrived, not when it opened for business.

Also, was prostitution illegal in Victorian London? I don't know one way or another, but maybe it wasn't. It wasn't always illegal everywhere in the US, except for one county in Nevada. In fact, strictly speaking, it isn't illegal "in the US," because there is no federal law against it. It's left to the states, and some states leave it up to individual counties.

[lynn cates]

Liz

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

Actually, the preferred method was inter-femoral. That is why both Llewellyn and Brown checked their thighs for "secretions."

"Or maybe with Nichols, she wasn't rifled because it was his first attempt?"

Then what of Liz?

Cheers.
LC

[Ally]

Hello Ally. Thanks.

Fair observation. She left John, about 2.30? OK. Pinched about 8.30. Not sure how long she solicited before a transaction. Also, not sure how long she drank. Plenty of time to wash. But where? Polly had access to the lodging house for bathing, but Kate never returned to Cooney's. But I am open to suggestion--even though Kate was dirty and not clean, like Polly.

Why, oh WHY am I always the one having to educate the men of this field on the basics of female hygiene. Sigh. Pick any scenario that floats your boat regarding a woman using a privy. Picture a wiping scenario. It would not need to be accomplished with soap and water. If we assume her last connection was around 6 pm, giving her time to get rip-roaring drunk, and she did a basic wipe after the fact, there likely would not have been any evidence when she was examined, almost 24 hours later. I do not count any examination taking place at the scene, at 2 am in the morning of "recent connection" being absent, in that there is no way of determining, given the setting and the circumstances and the limits of the exam whether a connection had taken place.

"Soliciting doesn't come with a guarantee of a pay day. . ."

Indeed. Especially when the prostitute says "Not tonight. Perhaps some other night."

Or she'd just done some business and hadn't yet prepped herself for another round.

". . . and may well be why she was seen in the presence of so many different men."

If they WERE different men.

It was probably just one man with different hats.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn

Well IS or Dimshitz come to mind. Of course that only matters if she was a victim of "JTR". I'm still keeping my seat on the fence warm on that one.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Rivkah.

Why should she have removed her rings? Or all her belongings for that matter? And if you have a ring on and I want it I'll have it. Seems not a large task for one who just murdered someone. And, I wonder if the lack of blood in the body might have aided a stubborn rings removal?

[lynn cates]

outdoor sports only

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

"Also, was prostitution illegal in Victorian London? I don't know one way or another, but maybe it wasn't."

Ready for this? It was illegal indoors. I think that became law 2-4 years before.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dirt, prepping and hats

Hello Ally. Thanks.

All that you say could be correct. But surely the doctors were practised in that area? Besides, Kate was rather dirty when found--at least, her clothes were.

"Or she'd just done some business and hadn't yet prepped herself for another round."

But how long would that take, given your scenario?

Wearing different hats? I KNOW that feeling.

(Occurs to me we are lucky to have a tolerant bloke to start this thread. We may be off topic?)

Cheers.
LC