Elizabeth's murder and the double event

[Madam Detective]

However I do believe you're correct about her being out looking for a new boyfriend. That would make sense. The last time Liz was actually recorded as soliciting was in 1884, 4 years earlier. She may not have still been soliciting in 1888.

[Sam Flynn]

The mistake is to assume that the choice of Eddowes was anything other than a random act. The fact that she was incarcerated until 1 am is immaterial.

I think it's very material, as there was no guarantee she'd be let out of the cells. If she hadn't woken up from her drunken slumbers, she'd probably have lived to a ripe old age.

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

You are only describing the first part of the evening. We have no way of knowing her circumstances later that night. What if her and her "beau" had a fight and her time with him ended prematurely? She was a poor woman with a drinking habit who had just broken up with Kidney. My point is that we have no way of knowing her response if approached by Jack at the end of the night so whether or not she was actively soliciting need not be a consideration.

c.d.

P.S. Not to be a jerk but it is "soliciting" not "solicitating".

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

Sorry for the grammar correction. The English major in me reared its ugly head.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I think it's very material, as there was no guarantee she'd be let out of the cells. If she hadn't woken up from her drunken slumbers, she'd probably have lived to a ripe old age.

I think if I recall correctly Sam that the City was using a Policy that dictated release of the Drunk and Disorderly as soon as they sobered up, rather than using the Met policy of holding them all night automatically.

[Michael W Richards]

I fear this is a case of pot calling the kettle black. We know nothing about what Liz was really doing - every sighting of her that night is unconfirmed. There is no absolute way to know if she 'spent hours with the same man wandering about'. There is also no absolute way of knowing if she was soliciting, or who she was meeting. Not a single shred of anything said by the so-called witnesses is verifiable. We don't even have the transcripts of the actual coroner's inquest, only newspaper reports which have been edited and reprinted. There is a vital difference between newspapers and the actual documents when it comes to reliability of source material. That's why we're never going to solve these murders. Period.

Sorry, but she was seen in the company of several people, if you count Israels BSM...which I don't by the way.

You are on the money when you say they will never be solved to the satisfaction of all....but I believe there are murders we can remove from the assumed list.

[Sam Flynn]

I think if I recall correctly Sam that the City was using a Policy that dictated release of the Drunk and Disorderly as soon as they sobered up, rather than using the Met policy of holding them all night automatically.

Indeed so, Michael. However, Eddowes had to wake up and demand to be let out. Had she not done so - even, perhaps, if she'd dozed on for just another half hour or so - she might never have crossed paths with the Ripper.

[Madam Detective]

Sorry, but there are problems with all of those 'sightings' - inconsistencies that would have them dismissed in a moment were they actually presented as evidence in a court of law today. Even the police had their doubts. We don't even have the original coroner's inquest documents, just newspaper reports, and if you read all of them, they are riddled with journalistic inconsistencies too - in many cases they actively contradict each other. There is no way of knowing what really happened, which is why it is literally impossible to solve these murders - however, it is a fascinating subject.

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry, but there are problems with all of those 'sightings' - inconsistencies that would have them dismissed in a moment were they actually presented as evidence in a court of law today. Even the police had their doubts. We don't even have the original coroner's inquest documents, just newspaper reports, and if you read all of them, they are riddled with journalistic inconsistencies too - in many cases they actively contradict each other. There is no way of knowing what really happened, which is why it is literally impossible to solve these murders - however, it is a fascinating subject.

Inconsistency is accurate, if you create a timeeline and place all the witnesses sightings and stories in chronological order, you can clearly see some people were either lying or very inaccurate. If you sort out who had a stake in a perception of guilt scenario, and set aside their stories, its gets a bit easier. Fanny, Brown, PC Smith and Spooner had no horse in this race. And 2 witness accounts from inside the club, plus Spooner, directly contradict Louis's story. No-one corroborates Lave, Eagle or Louis, ...or Israel...a friend of Wolff Wess.

[Madam Detective]

Yes, but the point is that we still can't prove it was Elizabeth they saw. In modern trials, site visits are required to check light levels, distance and visibility, sound, etc to see if it's even probable they could accurately identify the person. That's impossible in this case. In a modern court all such evidence would be discounted and we must apply the same rules today when evaluating this so-called testimony. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny, therefore we can make absolutely no firm assertions about anything. Even if there was a suspect, a jury (today) would not be able to convict if following standard criteria. And also, we simply don't know who had a horse in this race and who didn't because the credibility and backgrounds of the witnesses were never checked or questioned. All the evidence is tainted from start to finish.

[Madam Detective]

Also, the people who you say 'were lying or very inaccurate', may not have actually even seen Elizabeth, but someone they believed to be her. All of this occurred in the midst of complete public hysteria. Today, following a crime the police regularly get many 'tip offs' and sightings of victims or suspects which are incorrect. People are often absolutely certain they've seen or heard something which they didn't actually see or hear. It's all fraught with problems. And because the police in 1888 probably didn't investigate any of these sightings, or we don't know the degree to which they did or didn't question these witnesses, we're not in a position to draw any hard conclusions about who had a vested interest in something and who didn't, or what was a real sighting and what wasn't.

[Madam Detective]

Here's another thought - what if no one was hiding anything from anyone because there was no conspiracy?

[DJA]

When WE Gladstone writes to The Times to assure readers that Jack the Ripper is actually conducting research that will benefit them,one does get suspicious.

[Madam Detective]

Dave, I'd like to read that - but I've checked the Times archive and it doesn't seem to have been printed in the Times. Do you know where that appeared? And you're not seriously suggesting that Gladstone, who was nearly 80 in 1888 was the Ripper?

[DJA]

Madam Detective,pretty sure it was a letter to The Times signed WEG.
Cannot find a copy,however many here will have it.
Gladstone and Gull were both Fellows of the Royal Society,which may explain the source.
Neither were Jack the Ripper though.