Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How culpable were the Police in Kate's murder?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How culpable were the Police in Kate's murder?

    I am very new still but have a question that puzzles me and that is how culpable were the City Police in the death of Kate?

    Of all the victims, Kate is the only one who was under Police protection immediately before being murdered.

    Specifically, despite there being extra Police on the beat and the Police geared up to doing everything to allay the public's concerning Jack, they let a drunk woman out very late at night, who promptly fell victim to Jack.

    We only have the Police who say Kate was sober and singing and asking to be released. The Police are very clear on Kate wanting to leave. It was her decision not theirs, therefore they aren't to blame in any way.

    So what if, Kate was turfed out to clear the cells? What would be the City Police reaction? Would they lie to save their skins and reputations? They would go into serious damage control at the very least.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Sunbury View Post
    We only have the Police who say Kate was sober and singing and asking to be released. The Police are very clear on Kate wanting to leave. It was her decision not theirs, therefore they aren't to blame in any way.
    She was arrested at 8:00 falling down drunk. I think it's likely that by 1:00 the next morning, she was, if not precisely sober, at least recovered enough to be able to walk away, and to want to leave rather than spend the night in jail.
    - Ginger

    Comment


    • #3
      Here is a thread discussing how drunk Eddowes would have been at the time of her release. I concluded in that thread that she would have still been mildly to moderately intoxicated. Irrespective of this, the police should have kept her till morning, if only because it isn't the safest idea to let people walk home by themselves in the middle of the night.

      http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4986

      Comment


      • #4
        G'day Barnaby

        But are you sure you're not applying 2014 standards to 1888 actions?
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • #5
          There were a substantial number of drunks in the cells any night of the week, no doubt turfed out when they had sobered up to a degree, unless they did something bad in which case they would be charged and held over. What surprised me with my research was the numbers out late in Whitechapel and Spitalfields, right through the early hours of the morning. I know more about Mary Kelly, and on the night of her death we have McCarthy's chandlery still open at 1 in the morning and McCarthy chatting to his tenants coming and going. And he wasn't the only one.

          It was a different place and time, and different standards of care too.

          Comment


          • #6
            G'day Markmorey5

            There is reference in one of the earlier cases to a marred couple, witnesses getting home at about 1:30 am and then the wife going out to buy them supper at about 2:00.

            That to me is one of the most intriguing aspects of the ripper case, these were not deserted streets with no one out and about.
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • #7
              The police seemed to be following standard procedure when it comes to drunks. She wanted to go home, was sober enough to go home, and had not committed any serious offense. They had no idea that she would head to St. Botolph's to pick up Johns or enter the Square with strange men in sailor hats.

              Now, there are some people here who have a conspiracy theory that the police were following Kate with the suspect, and she got killed through their incompetence when they lost track of her. And I suppose that you might say that her death is due to malfeasance by any of the PC's patroling the square that night, or the night watchman who saw/heard nothing. These people are all potentially culpable in some way, but not the cops who released her.

              If you exclude Eddowes from the ripper victims and think Kelly killed her (I don't, but some do), she was likely doomed anyway, that night or some other night, and the only way they could avoid it was imprisoning her indefinitely.

              Comment


              • #8
                Trying to figure out the reason why the police are culpable for the fact Eddowes got drunk and committed an arrestable offence?.

                Monty




                Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                Comment


                • #9
                  G'day Damaso Marte




                  Now, there are some people here who have a conspiracy theory that the police were following Kate with the suspect, and she got killed through their incompetence when they lost track of her. And I suppose that you might say that her death is due to malfeasance by any of the PC's patroling the square that night, or the night watchman who saw/heard nothing. These people are all potentially culpable in some way, but not the cops who released her.
                  But

                  This applies to any murder or indeed crime, if you want to find someone, other than the killer, to blame you probably can.

                  Also how was the night watchman culpable. What duty did he owe Kate?
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Monty View Post
                    Trying to figure out the reason why the police are culpable for the fact Eddowes got drunk and committed an arrestable offence?.

                    Monty
                    They let her out late at night when they were on heightened alert for a killer that stalked single women. How is that for a reason?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Barnaby View Post
                      Here is a thread discussing how drunk Eddowes would have been at the time of her release. I concluded in that thread that she would have still been mildly to moderately intoxicated. Irrespective of this, the police should have kept her till morning, if only because it isn't the safest idea to let people walk home by themselves in the middle of the night.

                      http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4986
                      Thank you Barnaby for the link, I am new I guess most things have been done to death well before my time.

                      My answer to those who question her drunkeness is to do some simple research themselves. Get blind drunk at 4pm, next morning hop in their car and ask a friendly Police officer to give a breathalyser test. Thats allowing an extra 6-7 hours over Kate. That way people can test their theories with real life consequences.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sunbury View Post
                        They let her out late at night when they were on heightened alert for a killer that stalked single women. How is that for a reason?
                        Poor.

                        It was early morning.

                        They let her out because she was lucid, held conversation, answered questions and was deemed capable of looking after herself.

                        The police are not keepers of drunks and vagabonds.

                        Monty




                        Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                        http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hello Sunbury,

                          Just give up now...though some may applaud your views..some wont, and BOTH sides are immovable. Take it from me. And I can see exactly where you are coming from. :-)

                          back to hibernation


                          Phil
                          Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                          Justice for the 96 = achieved
                          Accountability? ....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If the police had a policy of keeping every drunk through till morning, then anyone without doss money, or who found the doss houses full on a cold or rainy night, would probably try to get alcohol somehow, or feign drunkenness, just to get out of the weather for the night.

                            The police probably streeted people ASAP for a good reason.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              G'day Sunbury



                              My answer to those who question her drunkeness is to do some simple research themselves. Get blind drunk at 4pm, next morning hop in their car and ask a friendly Police officer to give a breathalyser test. Thats allowing an extra 6-7 hours over Kate. That way people can test their theories with real life consequences
                              .

                              But in Kate's case it wasn't about capacity to drive, which is what a breathalyzer is all about, but her capacity to walk home. Big difference.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X