Arrangement at her feet

[FrankO]

Hi Tom,

Although I'm not so sure about Stride as a Ripper victim as you, the notion of the Ripper using robbery is a very good one. And like you, I think the items on the Chapman scene just accidentally landed there that way, with the appearance of being arranged.

All the best,
Frank

[Tom_Wescott]

Dr. Phillips and the Chapman murder

Michael and all,

It's important to remember Dr. Phillips' state of mind at that time. He was virtually in awe of the Ripper's audacity and his abilities. This would thaw a little as more murders occurred, but when a man of Dr. Phillips' years and experience is faced with something so dramatically new, it's understandable he might look at items that had fallen and process them as having been 'placed' or 'arranged', since that's the behavior he would expect of a surgeon. And although he stopped short of saying a surgeon was responsible, he felt the Ripper achieved a feat he himself was not capable of, so that says something about how Dr. Phillips was interpreting the evidence at that time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Although I'm not so sure about Stride as a Ripper victim as you, the notion of the Ripper using robbery is a very good one. And like you, I think the items on the Chapman scene just accidentally landed there that way, with the appearance of being arranged.

We have three women killed in a row, all with a sharp knife, all apparently by a stranger. We find on each a personal item(s) in a strange location. In the cases of Stride and Chapman we find both victims killed in a yard next to the exit. If nothing else, the cachous in her hand, the thimble next to Eddowes, and the items by Chapman's feet (and let's not forget the portion of envelope by her head, which I believe was still in her hand when she was laid down), link these women as victims of the same killer in a very personal way. The only reason to suppose Stride was not a Ripper victim is her lack of mutilation, which seems irrelevant in the face of all the evidence suggesting the same hand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

My explanation for this is that the Ripper used robbery as a ruse. The women emptied their pockets, he took whatever cash their was from their hand, and he killed them. This is why Eddowes was left holding a thimble and Stride the cachous.

Robbery as a ruse is a possibility, but Stride's cachous don't fit with such a scenario, in my opinion. There were intact buttons found in one of Stride's pockets, which should have been retrieved had Stride been ordered to empty her pockets. The buttons staying put in Stride's pocket fits with a scenario where the Ripper was interrupted after cutting her throat, and didn't have time to search her pockets for valuables. On the other side, NO money was found on Stride. Are we to assume that she spent all she had on drinks on the night of September 30, 1888?

As for Eddowes and her thimble: Monty would know best, but I don't think that the thimble was actually on Eddowes' finger at the time of her murder (what would be the purpose of this?!), but was located in close proximity to her right hand. It easily could have rolled there. There's the possibility that her assailant payed her first and let her fuss with the money, put it away in her mustard tin. Then, after cutting her throat, he might have taken the money back, throwing away any non valuable items. This scenario fits with the reports where Eddowes' pockets were allegedly blood-smeared.

Chapman's belongings were at her feet because they were knocked from her hand as she was standing. The injuries to her fingers indicate that her rings were removed AFTER death.

I fully agree about the ring injuries having occurred postmortem (as he would certainly have avoided making her scream by taking her rings while she was conscious), but her belongings having ended up at her feet might have happened when he emptied her pockets postmortem as well.

[Tom_Wescott]

As for Eddowes and her thimble: Monty would know best, but I don't think that the thimble was actually on Eddowes' finger at the time of her murder (what would be the purpose of this?!), but was located in close proximity to her right hand.

For once we needn't defer to Monty's peerless expertise. The thimble was indeed just off her right hand, having obviously fallen from it as her hand opened. If I typed that it was on her finger, I was once again typing without thinking.

Robbery as a ruse is a possibility, but Stride's cachous don't fit with such a scenario, in my opinion. There were intact buttons found in one of her pockets, which should have been retrieved had Stride been ordered to empty her pockets.

Unlike Chapman, Stride actually HAD money to give him. He would have asked for the money and she would have retrieved the contents only of the pocket that held the money. The cachous, like a paper bill would today, became lodged between her thumb and forefinger.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I agree with Tom Wescott's post #17 – pertaining to Dr. Phillips having been a bit “in awe“ of the killer, and possibly having exaggerated his quote of the items appearing as “arranged“.

[mariab]

Unlike Chapman, Stride actually HAD money to give him. He would have asked for the money and she would have retrieved the contents only of the pocket that held the money. The cachous, like a paper bill would today, became lodged between her thumb and forefinger.

Tom, any self respecting mugger would ask the muggee to empty ALL of their pockets, otherwise he'd be too stupid. The buttons having stayed put really belie the robbery scenario for Stride.
We know that Stride had money. (Do we know approx. how much?) Yet she was seen with different men all night of September 30, 1888, which might explain her having spent some money for drinks, but then, she should have gained some money too on such an “active“ night. Unless she really drunk a lot, which we know she did.

As for Eddowes' thimble, again, it doesn't make sense that in a robbery scenario she would be holding just the thimble in her hand and not the quadratic mustard box, where she clearly kept her money. Does anyone know where the mustard box was found vs. the thimble?
And a last thing: What on earth is the purpose of a thimble when people sew? They kinda wear it on their finger? But for what?? (Seems to me that one could also play guitar with such an object. At least one could try, for some cool effects...)

[Wickerman]

...And a last thing: What on earth is the purpose of a thimble when people sew? They kinda wear it on their finger? But for what??

You've never sewn anything?

The thimble is used to push the needle back up through the cloth you are handsewing. The thimble is protecting your finger from the point, yes?

[mariab]

Sure I've sewn, but completely as an amateur, and mostly buttons. Haven't registered any problems when pushing the needle through the cloth with just my fingers. I'm willing to bet that a thimble would be more of an obstruction. Nor do I recall having ever seen anyone sewing with a thimble. Must be an oldie thing.

[Wickerman]

Sure I've sewn, but completely as an amateur, and mostly buttons.

There you go, precisely!
Its use was optional, but in the Victorian days and such, alot of material was thicker than today, besides today it's all machine sewing. But in the 'good old days' when common people had to hand sew their buttons onto thick coats & jackets, and leather boots. A thimble would save you lancing your finger every time you pushed too hard to get it through...

[mariab]

Yes, I can totally get it with very thick coats/blankets and leather boots.

[Raoul's Obsession]

I think the idea that the ripper stole items, in particular money off victims, a very good one. But I'm not sure I buy the idea of it occuring prior to the murder.

I think it's the logistics of the scenario that I am struggling with. From my understanding these murders occured quickly and silently (MJK excluded) - there is no real evidence of victims having put up a fight (slight bit of blood on Stride's hand but then she probably had time to reach for her throat after it was cut as the ripper only got half the blood vessels he was aiming for). If robbery had occured before death, surely these victims would have cried out, or would at the very least have been on guard for further issues and seen the murder coming. The fact that they weren't makes me suspicious. Obviously the evidence of Schwarz is suggestive of an altercation and I accept that it is probably evidence in favour of the scenario, but I still have some doubts.

I also wonder why, if after getting Eddowes to empty her pockets for robbery, he leaves her with a small leather case with white metal fiittings. Numerous authors have questioned what such a valuable object was doing in her possession, so why wouldn't the ripper take that? I'm probably in the camp that suggests these objects were rather more carelessly strewn than Dr Phillips evokative language suggests. Maybe he was just reading rather deeply into some coincidental events.

Raoul

[lynn cates]

what if?

Hello Raoul.

"I also wonder why, if after getting Eddowes to empty her pockets for robbery, he leaves her with a small leather case with white metal fittings. Numerous authors have questioned what such a valuable object was doing in her possession, so why wouldn't the ripper take that? I'm probably in the camp that suggests these objects were rather more carelessly strewn than Dr Phillips evo[c]ative language suggests. Maybe he was just reading rather deeply into some coincidental events."

Perhaps. But what if Dr. Phillips were correct and Annie's possessions WERE arranged and Catherine's were strewn about? What then?

Cheers.
LC

[DrHopper]

Hello Raoul.

Perhaps. But what if Dr. Phillips were correct and Annie's possessions WERE arranged and Catherine's were strewn about? What then?

Cheers.
LC

This is an important point. We are assuming that at each murder the same thing happened - the same series of events. He may have decided to do thing differently each time.

Also, whilst I still maintain that the objects were not arranged in the true sense of the word (i.e. carefully placed with deliberation and meaning), rather Phillips used the word to describe their location in a specific area, not randomly strewn all over, I must confess to not having thought about robbery. I had assumed that the Ripper would be so obsessed with killing that he would not worry about the petty. But then, even the Ripper has to eat, and thus, having handed over the money, he would want it back, possibly with interest - which explains the missing items. Any that were left - the small leather case for example - can be explained by speed and carelessness on the part of the Ripper.

This raises a couple of interesting questions, particularly regarding money. If, as I believe, the Ripper was a local, and was relatively poverty stricken, can we discern a pattern to the killings that suggests when he got paid from his job - after all, he can only give money to a prostitute if he has it. Also, as I say, the Ripper has to eat and sleep, and so would need some form of employment - what kind of job could he hold down? Especially given his apparent mental issues and penchent for evisceration. If we assume he has a menial job, what sort of wages can we expect, and what does it cost for a 'knee-trembler' in LVB? How often would a menial labourer be able to afford one?
Sorry for the stream of conciousness folks... I've got a stinking cold, and have had waaaaaay too much coffee so far today!

[lynn cates]

food for thought

Hello Dr H. Indeed. But what if there were NOT the self same assailant in both those cases? I grant the similarities in both cases were striking, but there were also discrepancies.

Look at the sketch of Kate lying in Mitre sq, then compare that to the notes on both Polly and Annie who had their dresses raised.

Note also that Polly and Annie both died near a horse slaughter yard, Kate did not.

Polly and Annie had notched vertebrae, Kate did not.

Polly and Annie had double throat cuts, Kate did not.

Polly and Annie both had mutilations described as skillful, Kate did not.

What if Dr. Baxter were correct in his question at the Stride inquest (whilst comparing Liz to Polly and Annie on the one hand, and Eddowes on the other), and Eddowes' slayer were merely an imitator?

Cheers.
LC