One for Tom

[Observer]

Hi Paul

Hello, Observer.

3? Stride, Nichols and ?Eddowes? Did Mitre Square have double gates?

We've done this before : I want to take your cool points in different directions. Because if there were 3 killed next to double gates, I think the coincidence of that, the odds against that, suggest that the same mind selected all three spots. I've always wondered why JTR didn't take Stride deeper into the courtyard.

I do think Jack treated Stride to a rose, and I think that PFC Smith did see JTR with Stride. And as far as who selected Dutfield's Yard, I think it's important that noone had seen Stride around there before, so it doesn't seem to be one of her usual haunts.

I know this doesn't carry much weight with you because you don't see Stride as a Ripper victim, but I appreciate you listening and coming up with them great points.

Hi Paul

Yes, there were gates in the corner of Mitre Square where Eddowes lay, she lay only a few yards from those gates.

Regarding those gates, don't you think it was more likely that the prostitues in question had used those gates to conceal themselves on prior occasions.

The vast majority of London Streets in 1888 were constantly patrolled by policemen, the very fact that two out of the three gates which feature in the Ripper saga (Nichols and Eddowes) were locked might point to the fact that passing policemen had caught prostitutes in the act so to speak, and had the owners lock them in order to thwart the prostitutes.

Of course Nichols and Eddowes still sought out those locations, this could point to the fact that they were only part time prostitutes for want of a better name, and the last time they used the gates they were in fact open.

Regarding PC Smith’s man being Jack the Ripper, Schwartz testified to the fact that his suspect wore a peaked cap, Smith reported that his suspect wore a deerstalker hat.

The rest of their descriptions seem to match though, their ages correspond although their description of the two respective suspects “dark clothes” is a bit vague, and very hard to interpret. I don’t know, I have this gut feeling that Smith’s man and Schwartz’s man are two separate entity’s.

You must also bear in mind that the witness Brown saw Stride with a suspect after Smith's sighting this suspect had on an overcoat that reached down to the ground!!! So it could not have been the same man. This sighting comes between Smith and Schwartz



Regarding dress, all three witnesses disagree on at least one point, and if they are right in what they say, then Stride was in the company of three different men in the space of half an hour.

All the best

Observer

[paul emmett]

Hello, Observer.

I feel remiss over not knowing about the Mitre Square gates. They were locked, too? Still, while I can see the instict for ,say, Nichols to return to the "stables" (and I do like the joke), once the gates are locked, it's let's rethink this time, ain't it? Also as Mrs Holland's testimony shows, Nichols, like Eddowes, was on the move. And since she was moving, what are the odds that she would meet JTR at HER spot. What if Jack isn't moving and it's HIS spot? Jack could have liked the "stable" joke too. Indeed, wasn't there an abandoned stable in Dutfield's Yard? Maybe he REALLY liked the joke.


I'm not so much of a Scwartz fan, and even less of a Brown fan. We are both being consistent here, right? Scwartz's testimony seems to take us away from JTR.

[Roy Corduroy]

I'm not so much of a Scwartz fan, ... Scwartz's testimony seems to take us away from JTR.

The police sifted through all reports, the Stride witnesses, Pipeman, Lipski, and they surely came up with the same thought as Paul Begg 100 years later: "It is therefore possible - but by no means certain - that Israel Schwartz was the last person to see Stride alive and may have seen Jack the Ripper."

Roy

[paul emmett]

Hello, Roy.

Sure, it's possible. But if they liked him so much, they should have gotten him to come to the Inquest, or at least gotten him to decide whether it was pipeman or knifeman.

I just want to clarify something that your ellipses in my quote confuses. When I said that Scwartz's testimony seems to take us away from JTR, I
merely meant that people who believe Scwartz have a tendency not to see Stride as a victim of JTR.

[Observer]

Hi Paul

Hello, Observer.

I feel remiss over not knowing about the Mitre Square gates. They were locked, too? Still, while I can see the instict for ,say, Nichols to return to the "stables" (and I do like the joke), once the gates are locked, it's let's rethink this time, ain't it? Also as Mrs Holland's testimony shows, Nichols, like Eddowes, was on the move. And since she was moving, what are the odds that she would meet JTR at HER spot. What if Jack isn't moving and it's HIS spot? Jack could have liked the "stable" joke too. Indeed, wasn't there an abandoned stable in Dutfield's Yard? Maybe he REALLY liked the joke.


I'm not so much of a Scwartz fan, and even less of a Brown fan. We are both being consistent here, right? Scwartz's testimony seems to take us away from JTR.

I am of the opinion that Jack had a good idea of the haunts of the women he killed. I also believe that the women were in place in their regular locations when he approached them. I doubt whether they would stray far from the point of contact and where they eventually took their clients. Lets go through the victims again.

Nichols killed in Bucks Row, I would guess she picked up her killer in Whitechapel Road.

Chapman killed in Hanbury Street, soliciting in Commercial Street perhaps

Eddowes killed in Mitre Square, Point of contact Aldgate High street St Botolphs?

Stride if a ripper victim, killed in Berner Street, soliciting in commercial road?

Kelly killed in Miller's court, An intruder? Or soliciting in commercial Street?

I believe Jack was a wily young fox, who to to allay suspicion went along with the victims suggestion of a venue.

Regarding Brown and Schwartz as witnesses of worth, all I'll say is, are any of the witnesses reliable?

Observer

[Celesta]

Thanks Observer
quite right. I think the chap was just another client, his behaviour and actions seem to determine that; and it was common practise for clients to 'treat' their prostitute by giving them flowers, fruit, new bonnets and especially drink. In fact the common approach of a prostitute towards a client was to ask him if he was going to 'treat her to a drink'.
Well this chap had, hadn't he, and he was then just following the normal procedure by treating her to fruit and flowers... the next part of the routine was to get to the real business between them, but they were rudely interrupted by someone totally unconnected to the 'treats'.

What this illustrates to me is a man's willingness to spend a little time and extra money on enjoying his evening, instead of just jumping to it like a rabbit. If it was done, in the cases you posted, then it could have been done in Liz's case. Who's to say that the man who purchased the flower, if such was done, was not a repeat client? Someone she felt comfortable with and who wished to treat her? He need not have been Jack. Or he could have been.

She was witnessed turning a man down about something. 'Not tonight. Maybe some of other night,' loosely quoted. Could the rejectee have been Jack?

[caz]

Hi All,

As usual, too many assumptions have been made in this thread, with the result that some perfectly valid possibilities have been ruled out for no good reason.

Ben, I'm afraid you are guilty of two of these assumptions. The first is that the killer would have been too poor to have been invited back to share the delights of Mary Jane's hovel. The second is that Mary Cox would have readily admitted to servicing her customers in her own hovel had she done so.

Unless you reject the possibility that the killer was in work when he encountered his victims, he could simply have waited until he had a whole week's wages to tempt the women with before going on the prowl. They wouldn't have to know it was all he had to live on until the following weekend, or that he had no intention of parting with a penny of it. But can you honestly see a penniless, alcoholic unfortunate, behind with the rent, turning down anyone who was not positively foaming at the mouth, who could show her that much hard cash all at once?

Regarding Mary Cox, it wasn't her hovel to offer to paying customers, any more than it was Mary Jane's; they had their landlord's pleasure and displeasure to consider or they would be out looking for another hovel. Do you honestly expect the tenants to have compromised their own positions, as well as their landlord's, by volunteering the information that they were using his property for immoral purposes? He may have been turning a blind eye, or even taking a cut of their earnings, but I doubt he would have been entirely ignorant of the possibility that the unfortunate residents were using his property in preference to the streets, especially now that winter was fast approaching and the ripper was still on the loose. And I doubt he would have been thrilled about any of his tenants blabbing about it to the cops.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

The first is that the killer would have been too poor to have been invited back to share the delights of Mary Jane's hovel. The second is that Mary Cox would have readily admitted to servicing her customers in her own hovel had she done so

These are extremely safe assumptions, though, Caz.

The alternatives are remote possibilities which aren't wholly beyond the realms of credibility.

I suggest that the very majority of Kelly's clientele were unlikely to have had the financial means to cough up for an all-nighter. It would have made obvious economical sense to get through as many clients possible in the shortest period of time, and as such, she'd need a damnably good financial incentive to forgo all of that in favour of battening down the hatches with one client, and most of the local populace were in no financial position to offer such an incentive, unless we accept your odd proposal that he saved up all his money over a week (which assumes he had nothing to spend it on DURING the week).

Do you honestly expect the tenants to have compromised their own positions, as well as their landlord's, by volunteering the information that they were using his property for immoral purposes?

She admitted to being an unfortunate, and anyone who is prepared to admit to that is fantastically unlikely to keep all hush-hush and clandestine about her using the room for immoral purposes. If she was, the chances are vastly better than average that she'd say so. It would, after all, have been crucial information (and another potential witness) to include in an investigation into the brutal murder and mutilation of several of her kind. This wasn't exactly the Waldorf-Astoria either - "What? Prostitution? In Do-as-yer-please Street? With MY reputation?"

Best wishes,
Ben

[caz]

...unless we accept your odd proposal that he saved up all his money over a week (which assumes he had nothing to spend it on DURING the week).

I'm back.

Eh? Where did you get the saving up idea from, Ben? It certainly never came from my post.

Read it again - carefully this time, so I don't get your usual knee-jerk "Ben's safe assumption v. Caz's remote possibility" reaction next time round.

I thought it was obvious what I meant: that if MJK's killer was in work, he could have just been paid (especially if Lord Mayor's Day was treated by some employers as a public holiday and their workers were paid on the Thursday), in which case he could have shown her a week's wages, without having the least intention of leaving her with a penny of it. The same could have applied to previous murders that happened at the weekend or at a Bank holiday. That way, Jack could have tempted the women even if he was very poorly paid. In those days many robberies happened on payday evenings or just afterwards for the same simple reason: the workers with nowhere secure to leave their wages would be carrying them in cash on their person.

Isn't it a fairly safe bet that if any of Jack's potential victims wanted to see some hard cash before going off with him anywhere, then he would not have got far if he had been out of work entirely at the time or it had been just before payday when he went out on the prowl?

She admitted to being an unfortunate, and anyone who is prepared to admit to that is fantastically unlikely to keep all hush-hush and clandestine about her using the room for immoral purposes. If she was, the chances are vastly better than average that she'd say so. It would, after all, have been crucial information (and another potential witness) to include in an investigation into the brutal murder and mutilation of several of her kind. This wasn't exactly the Waldorf-Astoria either - "What? Prostitution? In Do-as-yer-please Street? With MY reputation?"

Best wishes,
Ben

Your opinion only, Ben.

From what I've gathered about unfortunates at the time, I just don't accept that the majority would have gone out of their way to volunteer personal information that could, for all they knew, have landed them in a cell or out on the street.

They lived from day to day and from hand to mouth and many were lucky if they made it to middle age and beyond - ripper or no ripper. Keeping the landlord sweet (for those lucky enough to have one) and not trusting the coppers were not just music hall jokes but facts of life. And in November, keeping the roof over one's head, be it the "Waldorf-Astoria" or a "walled orf exterior", would arguably have been higher on the average hooker's list of priorities than playing the model citizen and spewing out the whole unvarnished, not to mention unsolicited truth.

Love,

Caz
X

PS I've just noted that this is all wildly off topic for a Stride thread, although it does at least follow on from the idea of Jack being able to tempt his impoverished victims with treats of one kind or another. If you wish to add anything, which isn't just a repeat of your previously stated opinions, perhaps it deserves to go on a non-specific victim thread of its own? For me, the one murder that points to Jack having something the ladies wanted and were not afraid of getting, despite knowing that a killer was on the loose, is Kate's. I cannot see her leaving the relative safety-in-numbers of Bishopsgate or Aldgate for the darkness of Mitre Square with a lone male stranger, if he could give her no assurances that she would emerge better off - and preferably on two feet.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I thought it was obvious what I meant: that if MJK's killer was in work, he could have just been paid (especially if Lord Mayor's Day was treated by some employers as a public holiday and their workers were paid on the Thursday), in which case he could have shown her a week's wages, without having the least intention of leaving her with a penny of it.

I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying, although if Joe Local popped round offering what amounted to a week's wages simply to enjoy a night in her company, she may have smelt a rat. "Blimey, I didn't know you cared so much, deary!" "Umm...Oh, but I do, Mary. I do. That's not my knife." Still, a reasonable suggestion as opposed to a "remote possibility".

Still not sold, though, on the notion that Cox withheld the detail about taking clients home. She had already admitted to being unfortunate, so it wouldn't have been too taxing on McCarthy's imagination to envisage her taking clients home. Besides, Elizabeth Prater had no qualms about admitting to waiting for a young man, and I doubt it was a night of scrabble or boggle she had in mind.

If Cox was all hush-hush about her occupation, I might agree with you, but she wasn't in the slightest, so regrettably I can't.

Best regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

It would appear that we are assuming the only options are an all nighter or a wham bam in an alley. Could it be that clients could come back to Mary's room but not spend the night for a price in between the above options?

c.d.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying, although if Joe Local popped round offering what amounted to a week's wages simply to enjoy a night in her company, she may have smelt a rat...

You are still missing my basic point (which c.d. didn't miss) which is that even the most poorly paid working Jack could have timed it so he had enough cash on him to make each of his victims an offer they were highly unlikely to refuse. In short, he would have had the option to tailor an offer to an individual victim's asking price, or add a further incentive if it helped.

Money would have talked louder than the fear of Jack's knife to any of the women he succeeded in getting alone with the promise of it. No rats to smell if MJK (or any of the previous victims) was simply shown the amount she herself had asked for, for whatever service she imagined she was about to provide, whether it was a quick fumble in a filthy alley, bed and breakfast with all the trimmings, or one of a hundred other options in between the two.

Re Cox, of course it 'wouldn't have been too taxing on McCarthy's imagination' to envisage her taking clients home (despite it being way too taxing on yours) - a point I took pains to make myself and which you did not even have the respect to digest, in your tearing hurry to respond within 25 minutes:

He may have been turning a blind eye, or even taking a cut of their earnings, but I doubt he would have been entirely ignorant of the possibility that the unfortunate residents were using his property in preference to the streets, especially now that winter was fast approaching and the ripper was still on the loose. And I doubt he would have been thrilled about any of his tenants blabbing about it to the cops.

People are not all the same, Ben, and do not think things through in the same way, as you of all people should have realised by now, considering how many posters have disagreed with your black and white views on human behaviour. While Prater may have had 'no qualms about admitting to waiting for a young man', with no scrabble board in evidence, Cox may have thought better of blabbing about inviting men back if that's what she did, and a tipsy MJK may have boldly paraded men like Blotchy Features right under McCarthy's nose for all we know. But right there you have two out of three willing to entertain men in their rooms. So I'm not sure what difference it makes if you really really must have Cox conducting all her nocturnal business outdoors, right through an East End winter.

Anyway, as I said, this is a Stride thread, so I expect Sam to appear any moment to tick us both off.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz!

The Daily Telegraph of November 10 1888 seems to help you on the way, furnishing us with this bit:

"Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased."

It does not tell us the exact pattern of Kellys behavior in this respect. And it is just as apt to bring Sam on the stage as your post, I´m afraid. But there you are!

The best, Caz!

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

(I'm staying out of this )

[Ben]

He may have been turning a blind eye, or even taking a cut of their earnings, but I doubt he would have been entirely ignorant of the possibility that the unfortunate residents were using his property in preference to the streets

Exactly, which is why Cox had no reason to keep schtum about bringing clients home if that's what she was doing that night; which, in turn, means we're left with a more reasonable assumption that she wasn't bringing clients home - Cox, that is - on the night in question. I'm not saying she never did, only that we have a reasonable indicator that she didn't on the night in question.

While Prater may have had 'no qualms about admitting to waiting for a young man', with no scrabble board in evidence, Cox may have thought better of blabbing about inviting men back if that's what she did

And yet Mrs. Cox had no qualms about admitting to being unfortunate. Logical deduction? She probably had no qualms about admitting to taking clients home either, unless she was seriously deluded into thinking that McCarthy was turning a blind eye to such activity, which we're already established was probably not the case.

considering how many posters have disagreed with your black and white views on human behaviour.

Well, that's pretty insulting. But then I haven't seen too many of your views receiving popular support - quite the reverse.