"Crime Scene" Sketch.

[Wickerman]

Yes, he could have been mistaken as to the identity of the woman he saw,

Only recognising her clothes from the rear amounts to a slender argument.

but there can't have been too many women hanging around Church Passage and Mitre Square at 1.35am that morning or JtR wouldn't have chosen it as a killing ground.

Quiet?, isolated?, away from the crowds?, like Dutfields Yard?, like Millers Court?, like the backyard of Hanbury St.?
I thought the argument used to be how surprised people were that the murders were committed directly under peoples noses.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Alas, with so many uncertainties, we can only speculate..

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Colin. Yes, I believe that was her intention. She may even have started that direction.

I think she met her assailant and they spent a good bit of time discussing.

Are you familiar with the Blenkingsop story?

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

At 1.35 am, half an hour after exiting Bishopsgate Police Station, I would have thought that a fourpenny shag was the last thing on her mind.

But, then, that's the Authorized Version for you.

What's your version, Simon? Did you write an article on it?

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridwell,

It wasn't until Tuesday, I believe, that the City cops concluded that the Mitre Square corpse might have been the woman arrested in Aldgate on Saturday evening, an incident which John Kelly knew about a few hours before it happened.

This AV credibility sure is hard to find.

You buys your Ripper book and you takes your choice.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Authorised Version

Hi Bridewell,

That's always assuming the woman arrested in Aldgate was Eddowes.

The suggestion that she wasn't is a new one on me, but I'm interested in reading more.

Because of her mutilations the arresting cops couldn't identify her but, by golly, they didn't mistake her boots and apron.Clever stuff. Give those cops a promotion.

A woman with her nose sliced off and other facial mutilation is not going to be that easily recognised. The boots were distinctive as the right one had been repaired with red thread. Usual police practise is to remove footwear, or at least the laces thereof, before putting a prisoner in a cell. The arresting officer will have had a good look at them. The apron was, I believe, so filthy that it was not initially recognised as having originally been white. It was also patched. I see nothing remarkable in the officers having recognised distinctive clothing.

Exactly what credibility attaches to the Authorized Version?

Regards,

Simon

The belief that she had been loitering and soliciting for prostitution is supported to some degree by the evidence of Lawende and his companions. Yes, he could have been mistaken as to the identity of the woman he saw, but there can't have been too many women hanging around Church Passage and Mitre Square at 1.35am that morning or JtR wouldn't have chosen it as a killing ground. I think therefore, on the balance of probabilities, that the identification is sound, that the woman seen was Eddowes, and that she was soliciting a man in Church Passage. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

Identifying bodies of lower classes, when found outdoors, was notoriously difficult.

Mutilations or not.

That's why there were photographed.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

That's always assuming the woman arrested in Aldgate was Eddowes.

Because of her mutilations the arresting cops couldn't identify her but, by golly, they didn't mistake her boots and apron.

Clever stuff. Give those cops a promotion.

Exactly what credibility attaches to the Authorized Version?

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Hi Lynn,

She was released at 1am and anticipated "a damned fine hiding when I get home". I would draw, from that, an inference that her intention was to go home and face the music. Pc Hutt reckoned it would take "8 minutes ordinary walking" to get to Mitre Square. So 45 minutes after her release she was found 8 minutes walk from where she started. What was she doing in the remaining 37 minutes, if not soliciting? It doesn't take that long to eat a snack (assuming she managed to get one) and take a leak. The so-called Authorised Version does have the benefit of some credibility. I'm not sure the same can be said for the notion that she stopped off for half-an-hour for a picnic.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

common sense

Hello Neil. That was AFTER she was killed. How much was lost initially?

She had no money, right. But what did John live on?

As you say, common sense will out.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Hi Lynn,

The amount Brown quoted 3/4 fluid ounces of fluid in Eddowes bladder, which converts to around 118 ml.

A females bladder holds, I believe, 400/600 mls yet can expand to twice that size, albeit very painfully.

I'm no expert however that doesn't indicate a full bladder to me.


As for the money, I think its fair to conclude where that went.

Bottom line is that she had no money upon her persons and none recorded when she went in to custody earlier in the evening.

I apologise for my common sense getting in Simon and your way.

Cheers
Monty

[lynn cates]

food source

Hello Neil. Very well.

She was the only victim (so far as the records indicate) where her urine was measured. And that after her traumatic death. (Can't say how much she lost then.)

How to obtain the food? Likely from the same money that fed and housed John that night and the next few days. (John really needed to adjust his story.)

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Well yes Lynn, you do.

How do you know her bladder was full?

And how do you think she was going to obtain the food?

Monty

[lynn cates]

Something there is that doesn't love a distended bladder.

Hello Neil. Well, she hadn't eaten, she had water in her bladder and she feared a hiding.

Need I say more?

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Hi Simon,

That's all very nice however you, or Lynn, haven't answered the question of why?

Why was a fourpenny the last thing on her mind?

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Why not?

Why do you stubbornly cling to the Authorized Version?

Surely it can't be because you believe that all those cops and doctors who couldn't agree on even the simplest thing were telling the truth.

You can drive an eighteen-wheel tractor-trailer straight through the Eddowes/Double-Event scenario.

Regards,

Simon