6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[curious4]

Sorry again, seem to have taken the swedish spelling - I mean Yom Kippur.
C4

[Bridewell]

Arbeter Fraint

If anyone's interested, "Arbeter Fraint" means something like "Worker's Friend" in Yiddish. I'm not quite sure about the declension. I think it's very close to the German, though, so many people have probably figured that out already.

Arbeter Fraint would be Arbeiter Freund in German so, as you say, very close.

[Bridewell]

Robbery

Most canonical 5 victims were found without money on their person. It's theorized that the killer may have robbed them before or after the murder.

Hi Damaso,

Good point. The following is proffered solely on the basis that it's of a piece with the topic of the thread. One of the things which all the victims had in common was that none was found in possession of any money - not a farthing between the lot of them. We therefore argue, not unreasonably to my mind, that the killer took the money, despite the fact that such trifling sums were involved. But if a person is so desperate that he'll take pennies from a dead prostitute, why do we so easily dismiss robbery as a motive for the murders? Because some were mutilated? Why only some? Perhaps because mutilation was a means to an end, not an end in itself? Where do street whores keep their money when robbery is an ever-present danger? Answer; "Where you can't get at it, dearie" - Body orifices - mouth, rectum or vagina. I'm not sure how the missing Eddowes kidney would fit in though - unless (he said while donning a tin helmet) Trevor's mortuary theory was right.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Ahh...the robbery ruse theory rears its head...usually Ive seen it as an explanation for Strides cashous. The fact of the matter is that 1 women had her inner skirt pocket cut and torn open, and items from 2 victims were found by their respective bodies. But we also have evidence that addresses those specific concerns. Annie was robbed, someone took her rings. We have no evidence Kate was robbed, and we know where she was from 8:30pm until 1am,..though like Annie, she had items that would have come from a pocket on the ground beside her. We also know Kates clothing was cut, not pushed up.

We know Annie was bemoaning not earning while showing her sickness in her physical disposition, ...we know Polly was still seeking bed money when we last see her, and we know that Liz is not found with her 6d.. but also that she had no alcohol in her system and 2 new items on her person we do not believe she left her lodgings with. We know that Mary only had what Maria gave her that day and yet she got drunk, and home before midnight. The likely reason that none were found with money on their person is because they had none.

The only evidence of any robbery is Annie Chapman's rings.

Cheers all

[RivkahChaya]

However, you must agree with me that it is something completely different to be an Orthodox Jew for the middle classes in 2013 in a rich country than to be a desperately poor immigrant in Whitechapel in 1888 and understand that some (presumably) young jews would rebel against a religion which had caused them first to be persecuted in their homeland and then ejected from it. It is understandable that some may have temporarily lost their faith (I`m sure that the majority would have returned when older). To them a fast may have seemed a mockery perhaps.

No, I don't agree. Food was more available in London than it was to people who had been living in Russia, especially anyone who had ever experienced the Pale of Settlement, and more available even than it was in Poland, because food was just more available in general, due to the climate. If people hadn't made a mockery of the Yom Kippur fast on the grounds that "We never eat anyway" by 1888, why start then?

It had more to do with another life being available to them for the first time, and a desire to mock what religious Jews considered the most sacred day on the calendar, I'm sure. If the most sacred day had involved getting drunk, they probably would having been giving out free coffee.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Because there seems to be some discussion about the profile of the club members, religious and otherwise, here is an article from The East London Examiner on April 27th, 1889. I think it shows the friction the club members felt with the more traditional Jewish community and the police;

"On March 16 there was a demonstration of Jewish unemployed at the East-end, and a procession was formed up at the International Working Men's Club, in Berners-street, Commercial-road, and marched to the synagogue in Great Duke-street, Aldgate. They were refused admittance by the Chief Rabbi, and then went to a piece of land named Mile-end-waste, where they held a meeting. Inspector Ferrett and nine constables followed the procession. After the meeting was over a crowd gathered round the International Club, and some little disturbance took place in consequence of one of the defendants coming out of the club in his shirt-sleeves and striking a boy. Hooting ensued, and then the two defendants, with Friedman, struck out right and left among the crowd. Frost remonstrated, and then he was kicked and violently assaulted. Friedman caught hold of him, and with the aid of the other defendants dragged him into the passage of the club, where he was again struck over the head with a stick and hit by Kozebrodski two or three times. The defendants were arrested, and at the station charged with riotous conduct. When at the police-station Lewis Lyons went there and preferred a charge against the police, which, however, was dismissed. Application was also made for a summons against Inspector Ferrett for assault, which was not granted. Evidence in support of the charge was given by Inspector Ferrett, Sergeant Wright, Police-constables Frost, Harris, Sherrington, and other constables. - Israel Sunshine, Julius Barnett, Emanuel Snapper, and others, also spoke to being in the crowd, and being assaulted by the defendants without any provocation. - For the defence, Mr. Thompson called a large number of witnesses, most of whom were foreigners, whose evidence had to be interpreted, who said that on March 16th there was a synagogue parade, &c., "procession of the unemployed and sweaters' victims." After it was over there was a great disturbance outside the International Working Men's Club. The people were throwing stones and creating a great disturbance. The door of the club was broken open, and Frost struck Diemschitz, and rushed into the club. The police ran after Diemschitz; and two of the crowd struck him on the back. None of these witnesses saw any blows struck by members of the club, the mob and the police being the aggressors. Mrs. Diemschitz made an attempt to rescue her husband, and did strike the police with a hair broom, but that was the only assault that was committed. On the way to the police-station Diemschitz was kicked and handled by the police. One of the witnesses said he saw the handle of the door tried by some boys, and on Diemschitz and his wife coming to see what was the matter, although Inspector Ferrett was there, Frost kicked Mrs. Diemschitz, and struck her in the chest. - Mr. Thompson, in his address to the jury, contended it was highly improbable that the case as submitted by the prosecution was correct, as a great deal of what occurred was in a dark passage, where it was highly probable that the police had made a mistake. He thought very little reliance could be placed on the evidence of those persons in the crowd who declared they had been assaulted, for they were in such a state of excitement that they hardly knew what did take place. - Mr. Gill briefly replied, remarking the charge was one of assault only, and that undue importance had been attached to it by the course taken by the learned counsel for the defence. - His lordship, having summed up, the jury, after a brief deliberation in the box, found both the prisoners guilty of assaults on the police only. - Kozebrodski, who was recommended to mercy, was ordered to pay a fine of £4, or in default one month's imprisonment, the money to be paid on May 6th. Diemschitz was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and at the expiration of that time ordered to enter into his own recognisances in the sum of £40, and to find two sureties in the sum of £20 each to be of good behaviour for 12 months. "

It seems to me a dangerous place for a street prostitute to be alone trawling.

Cheers

[Hunter]

The brawls were of a political nature, eventually involving police, and perpetrated in the daytime... of no significance or relevance to a prostitute applying her trade and needing some location of human activity after the pubs had closed. Probably the same reason Kate Eddowes ended up where she apparently did outside of another club at that time of night.

[Bridewell]

Hi all,

Ahh...the robbery ruse theory rears its head...usually Ive seen it as an explanation for Strides cashous. The fact of the matter is that 1 women had her inner skirt pocket cut and torn open, and items from 2 victims were found by their respective bodies. But we also have evidence that addresses those specific concerns. Annie was robbed, someone took her rings. We have no evidence Kate was robbed, and we know where she was from 8:30pm until 1am,..though like Annie, she had items that would have come from a pocket on the ground beside her. We also know Kates clothing was cut, not pushed up.

We know Annie was bemoaning not earning while showing her sickness in her physical disposition, ...we know Polly was still seeking bed money when we last see her, and we know that Liz is not found with her 6d.. but also that she had no alcohol in her system and 2 new items on her person we do not believe she left her lodgings with. We know that Mary only had what Maria gave her that day and yet she got drunk, and home before midnight. The likely reason that none were found with money on their person is because they had none.

The only evidence of any robbery is Annie Chapman's rings.

Cheers all

Hi Michael,

Chapman's belongings had been removed and left on the ground. Eddowes' belongings likewise. I conclude that both were searched by the killer who left behind what he didn't want. If there was no intention to steal, what was the purpose of the search?

The likely reason that none were found with money on their person is because they had none.

That presumes that the women went into secluded places with strangers but that no financial transaction took place beforehand. If these women had been paid in advance by their killer who then took the money back, then they were robbed. The killer searched victims, left behind what he didn't want and took what he did. Chapman and Eddowes were found with no money, yet logically both should have had some, even if it was only 4d. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I think they were robbed.

[RivkahChaya]

That presumes that the women went into secluded places with strangers but that no financial transaction took place beforehand. If these women had been paid in advance by their killer who then took the money back, then they were robbed.

I agree that it's highly improbable that if what the killer wanted was his own money back (and I think that's a good possibility), it's on the other hand, improbable that our murderer is so scupulous that if he finds 6d, he takes only the 4 he gave the woman, and replaces the other 2 in a dead woman's pocket.

The killer searched victims, left behind what he didn't want and took what he did. Chapman and Eddowes were found with no money, yet logically both should have had some, even if it was only 4d. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I think they were robbed.

I don't think we can know "logically" what either Chapman or Eddowes would have, because it's not a logic problem, but I think there's no reason to assume the women weren't robbed. If the killer will cut cloth from Eddowes apron to wipe his hands (yes, I know there are other theories), why won't he take her money? 2d, or 4d was more money then, and it's unlikely the killer was very rich. That still doesn't make robbery the motive. If the immediate motive was some kind of gratification (yes, I know they weren't raped), and the underlying one was humiliation, or degradation, then robbing them is a further degradation, and probably didn't take very long.

I mean, I remember when there were still payphones on every block, and how often people used them, and when they were done, checked the coin return. Sometimes there was money, because someone had forgotten to get returned coins, or because the phone wasn't working correctly. We're talking about generally honest people, whose gain was the price of a phone call, and a 1-in-100 shot, or less, probably, but it took a second, if that.

Unless JTR really was some sort of "toff," and I've never believed that (or, anyway, not since I was about 13), he was probably another East End dweller who made a viable economic choice, by taking money from people who didn't need it anymore. That he was responsible for them not needing it anymore is reprehensible, but his own need is a separate issue.

[Cogidubnus]

This led me to think that this is just what Jack may have done with his victims, treating Liz to cachous and giving her the flower from his lapel (I think). Polly Nicholls had a new bonnet although she was penniless and was in a hurry when her friend met her, Mary Ann Kelly had "lost her handkerchief", Kate seems to have had an appointment (why else be so concerned about the time?) and Liz took particular care with her appearance that evening and Annie Chapman dragged herself out despite feeling very ill.

Hi Gwyneth

I can't altogether disagree with you regarding Liz...She's clearly not your archetypal whore...With her cleaning jobs she's more like the poor Eastender who only goes out on the streets whe she's forced, (I'm not romanticising her, just being realistic...there were thousands like her).

To my mind she also shows all the signs of leaving Kidney to pursue some form of relationship with someone else...and with all due respects to Tom's very well reasoned apologia for Michael Kidney, I do wonder if nonetheless he lived off her at least at times...

So she removes her most treasured possessions from their room and leaves them with others...She dresses up in her best...she's seen in and around a pub with a man displaying forms of affection totally alien to street prostitutes...she's subsequently seen wearing a buttonhole, and in death is found with cachous in her hand...doesn't this suggest she was pursuing another relationship, severing her ties with Kidney and moving on? (I hesitate to use the word dating...but perhaps it's not entirely inappropriate)...

So later that evening, who's asking her to do something she doesn't want to do (not tonight)...Michael Kidney, or her potentially significant other? Could be either, but so far my money's on Kidney...

All the best

Dave

PS Not sure about the rest though!

[Bridewell]

Chris Scott posted the following in February 2004:

Bedwellty, Monmouth, Wales

Extract from the 1868 National Gazeteer

BEDWELLTY, a parish in the lower division of the hundred of Wentllooge, in the county of Monmouth, 7 miles to the W. of Pont-y-pool. Newport is its post town. It is situated in a hilly district between the river Rumney, on the W., and the Sirhowey on the E., and contains the chapelries of Rhymney and Tredegar, the latter being now a market town, and the hamlets of Ishlawrcoed, Mamhole, and Uwchlawreoed. The district is rich in iron and coal, and is the seat of an extensive iron manufacture, giving employment to above 1,300 hands. Between 3,000 and 4,000 persons are engaged in the great ironworks and collieries in the vicinity.

Of the places in Wales where ironworks were present, the largest concentration of Kellys originating from Ireland that I have found so far is in Bedwellty, Monmouth.

In the 1881 census the following are listed:
John Kelly aged 22, born Limerick, Ireland. A lodger listed as a general labourer but his two fellow lodgers are identified as "cokers" so it is likely his work was related to the Ironworks.
James Kelly aged 23 born Cork, Ireland. A boarder listed as a Bessemer Labourer (Steel)
Matthew Kelly aged 35 born Waterford, Ireland. Head of household list as a Furnace labourer (Iron)
William Kelly aged 25 born Ireland. Boarder listed as an Iron labourer
John Kelly aged 30 born Ireland. Lodger listed as a Rail straightener (Iron Works)
James Kelly aged 26 born Ireland. Lodger listed as a Coke filer (Iron Works)
Patrick Kelly aged 40 born Ireland. Boarder listed as an Iron worker


The two main ironworks in the area were Sirhowy and Tredegar.

Interestingly, the most likely candidate I have so far found for Michael Kidney, who lived with Liz Stride, was in 1881 a Blast Furnace man at the same Ironworks and was living at 2 George Street, Bedwellty.

His reference to the most likely candidate to be Michael Kidney is interesting because, if memory serves, one of the candidates Debra unearthed as a possible Scots Guards Kelly was also from Tredegar. I shall hie me away to research!

[Bridewell]

Tredegar

John Harries (born 1863) Trediga (sic) - Drifting a bit off topic though (apart from the slim Kidney connection) so I'll stop it there.

[c.d.]

Another possibility is that she repaid a loan or made a loan that night to a friend. That could also explain her waiting outside the club. She was waiting for repayment from a fellow prostitute who promised to pay it back at the end of the evening. It would not be surprising that the loan recipient would be hesitant to pass that information along to the police.

Just a thought.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Of course, if the killer took her money, that means he rifled through her pockets after slicing her throat, which then argues against an interrupted Ripper murder.
If he had the time to go through her pockets then he was not interrupted, and if that is the case, it was not a Ripper murder.

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

I don't see how you can reach that conclusion. Certainly going through someone's pockets doesn't take much time. The money may also have fallen to the ground if her killer struck right after handing her the money. A simple matter to pick it up.

So if the interruption came after taking the money that could certainly lead her killer to skip the mutilations.

Keep in mind that the interuption did not have to be an actual interruption such a pony cart. It could simply have been a random noise and a wave of paranoia.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

repayment

Hello CD. Not a bad idea about a loan. And what a way to avoid repayment!

Cheers.
LC