the key

[Phil H]

Red bandanas have been popular for a LONG time. Colour hides dirt and stains, including blood, quite well.

A handkerchief is a handkerchief and unless one is proposing a conspiracy, I don't see the relevance here. (Did this not get discussed in a recent thread on Clothing?)

Phil

[curious4]

New things

Hello C!

You could argue that Kellyīs handerchief was the "new" thing - have often thought that it was significant that she spoke of losing her handerchief and being given a new one.

Liz stride wasnīt that hard up and Annie was reputed to have bought her rings from "a black man" - (more evidence, perhaps, that she was of mixed blood, hence Dark Annie?) and had had them, it seems, some time - long enough for them to leave marks when removed. Didnīt Polly have a new linsey dress, seemingly a charitable gift, as was probably her jolly bonnet?

Best wishes,
C4

[Abby Normal]

how funny. Nope, no virgin brides, I promise -- at least not in this case. And this is a Barnett thread, but here goes anyway, since this thread was highjacked long ago.

Nichols had her jolly bonnet.
Annie had her "recently acquired" rings.
Liz Stride had the green velvet she asked a friend to keep for her, plus the flower (she also had money so could possibly have purchased it, but perhaps got a "really good deal" on it)
Eddowes had a red leather, white metal cigarette case (why pawn John's shoes if she had something like this that would probably have been worth more? So maybe she did not have the case when they were pawning the shoes, and the case was "recently acquired" as well)

I don't know of anything new Kelly had.

curious

Hi Curious
What is the relationship between your theory and the victims having something new? What is your theory?

Is it that they are all connected by the murderer( a pimp perhaps or new "boyfriend"?) giving them something new?

I'm interested in what your thinking-please clear it up for me.

[curious]

Phil,
I worked on this early today but it would not post. Let's hope the system works better now.
[QUOTE=Phil H;188141]
My position is this: unless a theory is solidly founded on FACTS and EVIDENCE and there is a linking thread of logical argument, it is worthless except as idle speculation.
I don't know what you consider as "promoting" the ideas. I mention them here on Casebook to get other people's opinions, pro and con, because two and three brains brainstorming might produce something useful or completely rule the idea out. I see that as exploring an idea.

my approach is to keep several possible theories in view at every moment, against which I can compare any new ideas, interpretations or scraps of evidence (say a newspaper report) which appears on Casebook or in a new book/article.

Exactly. But not in view for every moment for me, my "file cabinet" of a brain allows me to put them away and pull out when needed.

As with Lechmere/Cross in another thread, one of my current aims is not to have potentially valuable "suspects" ruled out prematurely

Agreed, but their names do not need to be totally blackened without actual proof and there is precious little of that in this case

Also (sometimes at least) to offer an alternative to those who sift the evidence solely by its relevance to their personal "master theory" and seek to influence others/attach and deride useful material for their own personal and prejudiced ends.

My mind doesn't work like that, but those people do irritate me

Ausgirl - the "reality" of Astrakhan man is questioned so the red handkerchief may be a myth.

Phil, she knew that.

Nichols had her jolly bonnet - so did Coles (I think it was her?) the old one being pinned under her dress. Does that fact make her an undeniable JtR victim in your view?

Come on, Phil, have I ever said anything was undeniable? Not undeniable, but the new bonnet is very interesting. However, I started studying just the canonical five to keep the case manageable in my head


Annie had her "recently acquired" rings where do you get the information that they were "recently acquired"? I suppose the "polished coins" would have been argued at some point had the idea not been roundly disproved now.

On Casebook, under victims, down under a list of her items, I quote: "Had three recently acquired brass rings on her middle finger (missing after the murder)" I'm aware the coins appear to have been disproved

Eddowes had a red leather, white metal cigarette case I think this may not have been as valuable as you believe. The description I have seen suggests it was old, worn and something she might have picked up to put things in, like her other tin box.

Perhaps. I have not seen that description do you know where it comes from? and maybe instead of "new" the items were "new to them"


Even if each woman did have something "new" would that link them? Surely, we can all be said to acquire something almost every day, but there are many reasons for doing so.

We do acquire much "stuff" in today's world, but I suspect their lives were very different. But if you were investigating a series of murders and the victims all had something new when they could not even buy food, would you not attempt to see if they were connected? If they came from the same source . . . well, you can see how that connection might be important, right?

Poor though these woman are, the fact remains that they had to clothe themselves somehow (second hand, hand-me-downs etc) and a hat/bonnet was a necessary item of dress for a woman (and a man) in 1888.

Not necessary. Polly apparently did not have one until the day of her death. Ditto, Mary Kelly, who apparently went out wearing her black velvet jacket and Maria Harvey's bonnet. So they were not necessary, just highly desirable

Another link is the absence on any of the victims of any money - even though some might have been expected to have some.

Exactly, but could following that line of thinking lead to the murderer? Tracing backward on new items might

The question is, is this fact relevent or a red-herring? can we even hazard an answer?

How can we know -- unless we do explore?

[curious]

Hi, Phil,
Yes, the recurring red scarves were discussed on a clothing thread that I believe AusGirl started.

Hello C-4!

Hello C!

You could argue that Kellyīs handerchief was the "new" thing - have often thought that it was significant that she spoke of losing her handerchief and being given a new one.

Frankly that exchange as reported by Hutchinson sounds like today's spy movies, where she says an innocent-sounding line as:

"I lost my handkerchief."

To which a person who knows the code will then whip out a red hanky and wave it about . . . .

Could not have been plainer. Now, whether that's anywhere near the truth, if it even happened . . . who knows?

I don't see the handkerchief as a mysterious something new, because we know where she got it (if Hutchinson can be believed), if but perhaps I should have because if they all came from one person . . . . well you see where that leads.

Liz stride wasnīt that hard up and Annie was reputed to have bought her rings from "a black man" - (more evidence, perhaps, that she was of mixed blood, hence Dark Annie?) and had had them, it seems, some time - long enough for them to leave marks when removed.

Didnīt Polly have a new linsey dress, seemingly a charitable gift, as was probably her jolly bonnet?

Best wishes,
C4[/QUOTE]

actually I have seen speculation that Polly, being Polly, might have stolen her bonnet. The linsey dress -- wasn't it marked from a workhouse? I should look that up, but I'm afraid this will time out and I'll lose this post.

best,
curious

[curious]

Hello C!

Annie was reputed to have bought her rings from "a black man" - (more evidence, perhaps, that she was of mixed blood, hence Dark Annie?)

C4

drat, C4, I meant to ask you what the source of that is. I had never heard that before.

Thx,

curious

[curious]

Hi Curious
What is the relationship between your theory and the victims having something new? What is your theory?

Is it that they are all connected by the murderer( a pimp perhaps or new "boyfriend"?) giving them something new?

I'm interested in what your thinking-please clear it up for me.

Hi, Abby Normal,
I don't think I can dignify my musings with the term "theory."

When I first started reading through these cases, the "new items" just jumped out at me.

If they are important, then yes, I can see them being connected by the murderer.

The person I saw as a possibility was a hawker, but I suppose he could pose as a variety of things, perhaps a new boyfriend for Liz or Mary . . . hadn't thought along those lines before. And both these women had left prostitution for a steady man. Liz married her man, and Mary moved through 2 or 3.

I doubt a pimp because of the age and potential earning ability of most of the victims. I'm not sure a pimp would be interested in them.

The reasons I think of a hawker is that he would be familiar to the victims. He might even flirt with them, offer them discounts, or offer to allow them to pay for the items with their services and not money.

That way the women trust him and they owe him...

Does this line of inquiry interest you? Your thoughts, please, Abby Normal.

curious

[Ausgirl]

curious, wasn't Mary dealing in second hand clothes, along with Harvey? I read somewhere she was (I think, gosh, so many things to remember..) and Petticoat Lane was -the- place for secondhand clothing business? I was reading up on Hutchinson, and Petticoat Lane was described in one of the archived threads or dissertations on him, it was discussing him as a potential pimp or 'booty scout', I believe, as speculation about his peculiar-seeming actions on the night of Kelly's murder.

[Phil H]

Why would anyone want or need to establish a rapport with Polly Nichols or Annie Chapman?

These were worn out drabs, and at the time of their death both were staggering around the streets of Spitalfields/Whitechapel looking for trade. They'd have gone with anyone for the price of a drink or a bed.

The whole idea of "Jack" posing as something else to "win over" a future victim is so complicated (and unncessary) as to defy rationality. Almost ceratinly - in the two cases I have mentioned - "Jack" struck quickly and spontaneously, chosing women who were wholly unable to resist or even be suspicious (I think) - hence his selection of them.

The whole "something new" idea needs looking at from the perspective of likelihood. However poor in material terms, the chances of any individual having on their person at any given moment something that is "new" to them - an item of clothing, a trinket, a bit of tawdry jewellery, something picked up in the street, a flower or a "gift" from a friend, must be very high indeed.

Unless it can be shown that there was something definitely "unusual" in what the victims had on them/or had possessed (in the case of Chapman's rings) - I see no point in pursuing this line of argument.

Further, there is the danger of creating another myth, akin to the "arrangement" of items at Annie's feet; or the polished coins.

Phil

[curious]

curious, wasn't Mary dealing in second hand clothes, along with Harvey? I read somewhere she was (I think, gosh, so many things to remember..) and Petticoat Lane was -the- place for secondhand clothing business? I was reading up on Hutchinson, and Petticoat Lane was described in one of the archived threads or dissertations on him, it was discussing him as a potential pimp or 'booty scout', I believe, as speculation about his peculiar-seeming actions on the night of Kelly's murder.

I've never heard any of this before, but that might explain some of the items of clothing in the room. I can see casting about anyway you can to raise a few pennies when you have no job and no prospects.

And Hutchinson, well, I have just never heard that. There has been all sorts of speculation about him, but I don't know if there is really anything known for sure about him.

He's never been someone I've "delved into much" and there is so much here and published that becoming an expert takes years and years.

Plus, it is difficult to know what to trust as fact.

As a newbie, I wonder lots of things but have few or no answers.

[curious]

Why would anyone want or need to establish a rapport with Polly Nichols or Annie Chapman?

These were worn out drabs, and at the time of their death both were staggering around the streets of Spitalfields/Whitechapel looking for trade. They'd have gone with anyone for the price of a drink or a bed.

The whole idea of "Jack" posing as something else to "win over" a future victim is so complicated (and unncessary) as to defy rationality. Almost ceratinly - in the two cases I have mentioned - "Jack" struck quickly and spontaneously, chosing women who were wholly unable to resist or even be suspicious (I think) - hence his selection of them.

Further, there is the danger of creating another myth, akin to the "arrangement" of items at Annie's feet; or the polished coins.

Phil

Phil,
Granted, no one needed to establish rapport. But we do not know how Jack worked.

Drabs though they may have been, they were still human beings. Polly seems to have been very proud of her "jolly bonnet" and thought she was having a wonderful day.

Annie seems not to have become a prostitute until after her husband died and money from him stopped coming in.

Can you begin to imagine what even a little attention would have meant to these women? Annie had even been in a physical tussle over her sometime weekend man.

We do not know what "little games" Jacky played, other than the bodies -- and how many of them were there really? we don't know that either.

To eliminate or refuse to look at all possibilities is too narrow for the way my brain works. Which, I admit, is probably different from most.

I'm not tied to the "new things" idea. It was something that intrigued me from the beginning.

Neither am I trying to start a new "myth". However, I am not afraid to look at what is there, and ponder things. Some I keep as possibilities, others I dismiss because they don't hold together to create a "bigger picture."

The old tried-and-true line of thinking has not really solved anything. Not that I think it is solvable at this point, but to refuse to look at all angles, really? What does that accomplish?

And what does it accomplish to talk about these poor people sometimes in the way that we do? They were real people, with dreams, feelings and lives that thankfully is much different from ours, but still, to call people murderers without proof or any real evidence, to totally ignore the humanity of the victims . . . it grates on me.

curious

[Phil H]

Probably no one needed to establish rapport, but we do not know how Jack worked.

I see your proposal (a hawker) as unlikely to fit in with any currently identified suspect!!

Drabs though they may have been, they were still human beings. Polly seems to have been very proud of her "jolly bonnet" and thought she was having a wonderful day.

What has "being a human being" got to do with the issue in hand? Polly was so drunk she could hardly stand, as Emily Holland testified. Her views on her situation can hardly be taken seriously.

Annie seems not to have become a prostitute until after her husband died and money from him stopped coming in.

Are we still reflecting the use of my words, or is there a point here relevant to this discussion?

Can you begin to imagine what even a little attention would have meant to these women?

My response is that in the situation they were in at the time of the fatal attack, Polly and Annie were not looking for tenderness, but for threepence or so. "Jack" didn't need to seduce them, they would have gone with a fat, sadistic, smelly amputee if he came along - and probably did!

We do not know what "little games" Jacky played, other than the bodies -- and how many of them were there really? we don't know that either.

The number of bodies is irrelevant to the point under discussion here - but I don't remotely see a supposotional "hawker" created out of a supposition that each victim had something "new" (in itself questionable in the extreme) helps us in any way.

To eliminate or refuse to look at all possibilities is too narrow for the way my brain works. Which, I admit, is probably different from most.

To look at ALL possibilities is a waste of time and energy - what we do need to follow-up are real clues and information. We are, by and large, scornful of the exotic suspects (Carroll/Barnardo) and masonic and royal conspiracies conjured out of thin air, speculation and mis-applying evidence. The hawker idea is (IMHO) simply such a misapplication albeit in a minor key.

I'm not trying to start a new "myth" but I'm not afraid to look at what is there, and ponder things.

But you are looking at things that are not there!

The old tired and true line of thinking has not really solved anything. Not that I think it is solvable at this point, but to refuse to look at all angles, really? What does that accomplish?

I am wholly open to new ideas (as my questioning of Stride and MJK as cononical victims should indicate) but those ideas must have some solid basis, or you may as well go and play in the sandpit with the kids. You yourself comment in another recent post, "Plus, it is difficult to know what to trust as fact."

I'd respond, and ideas like this one about a hawker and "Jack's games" do not help. They muddy the waters rather than shedding light.

Take another example to site in the same earlier post: "...Hutchinson, well, I have just never heard that [he might have been a pimp]. There has been all sorts of speculation about him, but I don't know if there is really anything known for sure about him."

And most of it started out as the sort of baseless speculation akin to your "hawker". Hutchinson, to my knowledge, has yet to be firmly identified (notwithstanding posters who claim certainty). Yet we now see his walk to Romford, the night of his "watch" on Miller's Court all questioned. We see him dubbed not only a witness to events, but now as a murderer or accomplice.

There are all sorts of questions to be asked about GH, but the houses built on sand that are being "hawked around" on this site defy belief.

Phil

[curious]

Actually, I can quote Jon Guy in a thread from Dec. 10, 2009:

I have absolutely no interest in Suspect Ripperology but there was an interesting chappy called John Simmonds, who was a 22 yr old hawker who lived at 60 Wentworth St, and he was admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary a week after the double event suffering from syphilis, and was discharged on Nov 8th!!

Phil, you are allowed to consider or dismiss whatever you please. But so am I.

[Phil H]

Phil, you are allowed to consider or dismiss whatever you please. But so am I.

As I did and as you are doing.

Actually, I can quote Jon Guy in a thread from Dec. 10, 2009:

I have absolutely no interest in Suspect Ripperology but there was an interesting chappy called John Simmonds, who was a 22 yr old hawker who lived at 60 Wentworth St, and he was admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary a week after the double event suffering from syphilis, and was discharged on Nov 8th!!

Did you find that quote before or after positing about your "hypothesis" - if before, then I am surprised you did not quote it then. If after, it is interesting, but suggests your original posts were not as securely based as you might have hoped.

If the hawker is relevant, and there must have been many, I assume you would equally accept a cats meat salesman? One possible connection to the torso murders suggested in Mei Trow's recent book. The front room of 29 Hanbury St sold cats meat, of course, so Trow's suggestion would seem to have as much basis as your hawker?

Phil

[curious4]

drat, C4, I meant to ask you what the source of that is. I had never heard that before.

Thx,

curious

Hello C,

Think itīs in one of my books - heaven knows which one, I now have quite a library - or possibly in a newspaper report. I will try to find it. Stuck in my mind after a discussion on why Annie was called Dark Annie. As for the dress, I think it was in the context of a vicarīs wife or charity worker mentioning that one of the victims had been given clothing (or a dress) by them and Mary Ann fits the bill as she is the only victim wearing something new.

Will get back to you when I have recovered from my hectic summer - visit to JTR`s haunts, among other things The Ten Bells and at least three of the street markets.

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. I am with you in thinking that Jack "befriended" his victims - perhaps posing as a social worker who flattered them by taking a "special" interest in them and who would be trusted by them.