Did Catherine know who JTR was???

[Iain Wilson]

Some of the vicitms may well have hooked up with a bloke for a few gins some fish and chips or a few pennies to get themselves a bed. What is the difference?

There's a world of difference between "sleeping around" and "sleeping with someone for money".

Promiscuity simply refers to someone who isn't fussy and has many casual sexual partners. A prostitute is someone who sells sex.

These poor women were not going out and having sex for the fun of it, they were doing it to survive. There is a world of difference between what they were forced into doing and some girl who is bored and requires a bit of cash and a good time in the modern day and age.

[Phil Carter]

If those that were close to Eddowes,were ignorant of the fact she prostituted herself,how do those that today write of her as doing so,know of this as fact?Where did the allegation originate.

Harry,

This is interesting indeed. Like I said earlier..and I throw it into the ring again...sometimes, I get the feeling that parts of it is like a made up story.

Richard, Yes,agree with you... that fence sitting has been wise on this subject..Eddowes "immoral" earnings.I am not sure either.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

One could add Kidney and Barnett to that list too.

Or a kidney and uterus !

[Addy]

Isn't this getting off topic? The question was did she know who JtR was, not whether she was a prostitute or not.

There has always been controversy over this, however most sources state she was an occasional prostitute, at least during the time she was with Conway. I believe it was even stated by relatives during the inquest, though I'm not sure on this point. Personally I feel, as I said before, as all the other JtR victims were also prostitutes, it makes it very likely she was, at least that night, solliciting.

I agree that the recent bruise on her hand was made by the killer. He must have grabbed her at one point or another and a hand on the chest is quickly taken. I don't think she was telling someone to back off at that moment. Lawende stated they seemed friendly and though times were different, I doubt a woman would be friendly towards a man who took her for an prostitute and proposing business if she was a respectable woman (as they were called then) on her way home.

Greetings,

Addy

[Maggyann]

The recent bruise could have happened when she was arrested for being disorderly.

[tnb]

Addy - I am sure you are aware of the unwritten rules of this board by now:

Any thread about Eddowes will end up being about whether she was a prostitute or not.

Any thread about Stride will end up being about whether she was killed by 'Jack the Ripper' or not.

Any thread about Kelly will end up being about Hutchison.

And any thread about Hutchison will end up in a massive argument!

Tis the way of the world.

[Chava]

Maggyann, in late Victorian English the usage of the word 'unfortunate' as a noun was a euphemism for 'prostitute'. As in Mary Ann Cox's testimony at the MJK inquest. Some sources have her saying 'I am a widow and an unfortunate'. Others don't use the word unfortunate but say 'I get my living in the streets' which is a more overt way of getting the point over. If any contemporary source mentions that Eddowes was 'unfortunate' or 'an unfortunate', they mean they believe she had resorted to prostitution either regularly or occasionally.

[Addy]

Hi tnb,

I am relatively new here but I was getting a hunch!

Chava: indeed, the police could have picked her up roughly or supported her roughly when guiding her through the streets. I always assumed they would have picked her up under her arms if she was laying in the street. However your idea could be true too.

Greetings,

Addy

[curious]

Hi,

I have mentioned many times on Casebook,[ and to my astonishment has never been discussed,] the bruise[ of recent origin[ found on her left hand between thumb,and first finger, described as the size of a sixpence.
Question where did this come from, taking the medical view that it was recent?

Regards Richard.

Chapman was also bruised:
"There was a bruise over the middle part of the bone of the right hand.
"There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest."

And Stride
in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration.

But I've also wondered that both Chapman and Eddowes had the marks on their hands.

curious

[Varqm]

Hi,

Wilkinson also fumbled, if I remember right, about his logbook,to the effect that when asked about lodgers coming in at past midnight (?) he said he will consult his logbook. But actually his logbook does not contain time or names , only a mark wheteher a bed was occupied or not. He deals with his logbook everyday and I think he should have known this.
But people do get nervous in court.
I kinda research a bit about 55 flower and dean and Wilkinson was listed as a lodger in 1881,labourer,born in Manchester. In 1886 he was married in christ church (?) to a Mary ann cox, listed his occupation as a butcher. So sometime after that he bacame the deputy. They did not have kids as shown in the1891 census. His wife died in Dec. 1891 I believe and he got married 3 months later.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Varqm,

Another coincidence between the two cases..MJK and Eddowes..

The name..Mary Ann Cox.

Mary Ann Cox, 5 Miller's Court estimated age from Court records is 31 in 1888. (b.ca 1857)

Any connection with this Mary Ann Cox perchance?

best wishes

Phil

[harry]

In my opinion,determining whether she was engaged in prostitution,is very relevant to the question as to whether she knew her killer(JTR).He was seeking a victim,that appears obvious,so why not approach someone known to him, who, in the circumstances seemed a likely candidate.The approach in that case would need no sexual overtone,just a greeting and chat with an aquaintance, who at that time of morning might well,after what she had experienced, been glad of his company.
Why the insistance by some, that there had to be a sexual content.Leave sexuallity out of the meeting, and think of alternate reasons why killer and victims might have got together.There must be some.

[Bob Hinton]

Your blog.

I am very impressed with your blog, very clean and professional looking. The photographs you are posting are also invaluable.

Return to thread now!

Message for TNB

[bolo]

Hi Harry, all,

Leave sexuallity out of the meeting, and think of alternate reasons why killer and victims might have got together.There must be some.

maybe, but I'm having difficulties finding them. With the possible exception of Polly Nichols, the victims were killed in places prostitutes used to use for their business or at least were good enough for that like the dark corner of Mitre Square where Kate's mutilated body was found by PC Watkins only ten minutes after she was last seen.

Even if Kate and/or the other victims knew their killer either personally or by sight, the question remains why they followed him to these dark places if not for quick sex, so the assumption that most, if not all of the victims were (casual) prostitutes does not seem too far off the mark.

.

Back to the topic at hand.

I think it's possible that Kate had an idea about the identity of the murderer just like many other people in the East End. In Complete History, Sugden mentions an article by the East London Observer from October 13th which claimed that Kate said she knew the murderer and wanted to earn the reward for his arrest.

If the article can be trusted (Sugden rates it as a, quote, 'dishonest reporting drawing upon confused memories of [John] Kelly's various press statements'), Kate probably would have gotten in touch with the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee instead of the Metropolitan police or other official authorities because as far as I know, the latter did not offer an official reward at that time. According to Begg's The Facts, it was Sir James Frasier, commissioner of City of London Police, who offered a reward of £500 but that was after the killing of Eddowes.

I just say this because some members like Addy have said that Kate had plenty of opportunities to inform the police about her suspicion. This is true, however, there would have been no money to be got in this case so IF Kate really was after the reward (which I don't believe), there was no reason for her to reveal her knowledge to a police officer.

Regards,

Boris

[Addy]

Hi Boris,

You are quite right, the offer would not come from the police. However, wouldn't the vigilance committee have awarded the money to the person who gave the police the golden tip? It could explain why she was going to pubs and ended up drunk: looking for a member of the vigilance committee.

Greetings,

Addy