Broadmoor Archives finally open

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I've been re-reading what's known about Thomas and, although I don't think he was Jack the Ripper, he's definitely an interesting young bloke and a more likely suspect than others.

The reason I think that is because, as far as his characteristics go, they could explain Jack's work (under the assumption he was Thomas). "I have known much better looking men than you who did not spend half as much time in looking at themselves," is what the man who Thomas pushed down the stairs said, which was Thomas' reason for doing so (presumably). Now, Thomas was clearly paranoid, and if he had low self-esteem, this would've angered him quite a bit I'd imagine. This happened 'a fortnight before' Martha Tabram was killed (who I'm starting to warm to the idea of being a Jack victim, whether that was Thomas or not). Could that have been what set Thomas off, what the old man said goodnaturedly but his jibe being taken seriously? He could've acosted prostitutes and be reminded of what he had been told, feeding his paranoia, and lashed out and made his 'drawings' a reality. And after he'd done one murder, he got a taste for it...

I don't think that's what actually happened or who Jack was, but it's possibility like with everything to do with this case. From reading descriptions of Thomas he was said to be sallow or strange-looking; are there any photos in the Broadmoor files? It'd be interesting to put a face to the name.

[George Hutchinson]

Sara - agreed and it was always so and shall remain so.

PHILIP

[Sara]

Except it's not really funny - some of us are busy people and it's damn annoying imo when threads get taken over by ridiculous interminable arguments over things which are either (as in this case) as clear as the nose on yer face, or totally incapable of being proven.

I came on here today after a busy week thinking "Oh good, more posts on the Broadmoor thread" - which I started - and having gone back FIVE pages found nothing of the sort!

Patience, Lord, patience...

[George Hutchinson]

Indeed captain that is true...

From you of all people I would have expected a grasp on reality.

Comedy gold.

PHILIP

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi All,

My goodness, that flushed a covey of birds out of the thicket.

Swanson was unreliable when it came to accuracy in his reports.

I cannot find one newspaper report of Timothy Donovan describing Annie Chapman as a prostitute, but I did find this.

Freemans Journal and Daily Commercial, 10th September 1888—

"Chief Inspector West, who was soon called to the spot, states the woman's name is believed to be Annie Siffey, aged forty-five, and for the last few months she has been sleeping at a common lodg-house at 35 Dorset-street, Spitalfields, where she was seen at two o'clock this morning. Like Mary Ann Nicholls, who I supposed to have been murdered by the same hand, she was a prostitute, and was known in the neighbourhood of Brick-lane as "Dark Annie".

Senior policemen aren't paid to suppose.

John Kelly denied that Eddowes was a prostitute.

Elizabeth Gustafsdotter was registered as a prostitute in Sweden, but as John Stride married a woman whose maiden name was Gustifson we don't know 'for a fact' that they were one and the same woman.

Which leaves us with Barnett's contradictory utterances about MJK.

So on balance there's a case to suggest that the C5 weren't prostitutes.

Unless, of course, anyone knows better [for a fact].

Regards,

Simon

Simon this is just plain sillyness. Of course Kelly denied Kate was a prostitute..what would you expect? That he said yes, Hey I'm a pimp, and have been living off immoral earnings?

They made money anyway possible and ladies had an avenue not open to men...they were both more interested in their cup of tea and breakfast than sex.

Pirate

Ps Nice to have you back on the boards Stewart. Trusting you had a good Xmas and wishing you a happy new year.

[Jeff Leahy]

I don't consider Elizabeth Stride to have been the victim of a serial killer active in 1888 in the East End of London.

Generally, why would a prostitute pick hops in Kent?
Generally, why would a prostitute clean rooms at a common lodging house?
Generally, why would a prostitute take washing and sewing in?

Firstly thank you Stuart for your post...

Firstly, these women aquired money any way possible..they were broke.

They would clean srub and do anything to make a few shillings

They would also wash and sew. it was all part of the same game called survival...

I'm really having difficulty with your logic captin?

Pirate

[Ally]

Simon,

So he mentions Nichols and her immoral habits and that the street is used for prostitution.

What precisely do you think he was referring to with immoral habits? Maybe she had sex with random strangers but didn't get paid for it? So she wasn't a prostitute, she was just a slut?

[Sam Flynn]

Many ways to skin a cat

These women were poor and prostituted themselves to survive.

They also would have resorted to other means of earning their doss (e.g. hawking or charring), or - if that was not possible - by simply begging. Whilst some (if not all) of the victims had resorted to prostitution once in a while, it does not automatically follow that they engaged with their killer, or he with them, on that basis.

[Chris]

I just re-read Abberline's 19th September report in which he mentions Nichols' drunken and immoral habits, and Chapman's drunken habits.

He also writes that "Bucks Row is a quiet narrow thoroughfare frequented by prostitutes for immoral purposes at night and no doubt the yard of 29 Hanbury Street has been used for a similar purpose."

But at no point does he suggest that either victim was herself a prostitute.

But of course, you omit his statements regarding Nichols (at 1.40am) "She requested that her bed might be kept for her and left stating that she would soon get the money" and Chapman (at 2am) "not having the money to pay her lodgings left the house remarking she would go and get it".

Obviously they intended to get the money through prostitution!

[Jeff Leahy]

Get real Captain..we know why they were there..stick to the facts'
I know it suits the fevered imagination of many male posters on this site to imagine and portray the victims as wanton harlots ruthlessly combing the streets in search of male prey, but the fact of the matter is that they were cold, hungry and victims of abject povert with no other choice but to wander the streets in the hope of finding their 'doss' money..

Indeed captain that is true. However there are no fevered imaginations. These women were poor and prostituted themselves to survive.

From our modern perspective it is a hard and sad reality. but that reality was for all of the victims..prostitution.

From you of all people I would have expected a grasp on reality.

Your obedient Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

I just re-read Abberline's 19th September report in which he mentions Nichols' drunken and immoral habits, and Chapman's drunken habits.

He also writes that "Bucks Row is a quiet narrow thoroughfare frequented by prostitutes for immoral purposes at night and no doubt the yard of 29 Hanbury Street has been used for a similar purpose."

But at no point does he suggest that either victim was herself a prostitute.

Odd.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Don't forget E.S. Johnson's "It is believed . . ."

Oh, for heaven's sake!

One police report used that phrase, and the rest are without qualification.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ally,

Allow me time to get back to you on your most tortuous reply.

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

YOu were the one who made the statement that none of the police had identified them as prostitutes. That statement is demonstrably false. And has been proven false. Now you are backpedaling and say you don't believe the police anyway.

Why should you believe the official police line? Easy. Because you yourself cited them as a source and apparently considered them excellent sources when you thought they HADN'T said they were prostitutes. So you considered them good enough to believe when you thought they said what you wanted them to.

By your very own use of them as support, you have proven that you accept their statements.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Don't forget E.S. Johnson's "It is believed . . ."

Regards,

Simon