Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Many Victims Were There?

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

  • I have no intention of getting into a debate over this. Can it be proven with 100% metaphysical evidence that Eddowes was a prostitute? No. Even if we had a notarized document in her own hand signed in blood that wouldn't suffice since she could have been lying or delusional or simply imagined herself to be a prostitute.

    Is it alleged that she was a prostitute? Yes. Simply do a Google search for Eddowes and prostitute. See what comes up.

    Although it would be attempting to prove a negative if anyone can conclusively show she was not a prostitute then by all means do so.

    The bottom line is that I think it is quite a coincidence that both Stride and Eddowes were alleged to be prostitutes. Take that for what you think it is worth.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • Even if we could prove that Eddowes did not engage in prostitution ever does that mean she could not have been a Ripper victim? No. We still have the throat cutting and mutilation.

      c.d.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
        I have no intention of getting into a debate over this. Can it be proven with 100% metaphysical evidence that Eddowes was a prostitute? No. Even if we had a notarized document in her own hand signed in blood that wouldn't suffice since she could have been lying or delusional or simply imagined herself to be a prostitute.

        Is it alleged that she was a prostitute? Yes. Simply do a Google search for Eddowes and prostitute. See what comes up.

        Although it would be attempting to prove a negative if anyone can conclusively show she was not a prostitute then by all means do so.

        The bottom line is that I think it is quite a coincidence that both Stride and Eddowes were alleged to be prostitutes. Take that for what you think it is worth.

        c.d.
        Hi CD,

        Can you remind me who alleged Eddowes was a prostitute? I’m not talking about whether latter-day ‘experts’ have assumed so, but who at the time said so? The police? Those she lived among? Her family?

        I’m not seeking to debate this, just to fill in a gap in my knowledge.

        For me there is a question mark over why she got herself released from her cell and then made her way to a dark, damp corner of Aldgate. To get her head down for a good night’s sleep Hallie Rubenhold would say. ;-)

        Gary

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          Hi CD,

          Can you remind me who alleged Eddowes was a prostitute? I’m not talking about whether latter-day ‘experts’ have assumed so, but who at the time said so? The police? Those she lived among? Her family?

          I’m not seeking to debate this, just to fill in a gap in my knowledge.

          For me there is a question mark over why she got herself released from her cell and then made her way to a dark, damp corner of Aldgate. To get her head down for a good night’s sleep Hallie Rubenhold would say. ;-)

          Gary
          Inspector McWilliam of the City of London police stated that Thomas Conway her ex had been compelled to leave her 'on account of her drunken and immoral habits' which could be construed as prostitution.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
            I have no intention of getting into a debate over this. Can it be proven with 100% metaphysical evidence that Eddowes was a prostitute? No. Even if we had a notarized document in her own hand signed in blood that wouldn't suffice since she could have been lying or delusional or simply imagined herself to be a prostitute.

            Is it alleged that she was a prostitute? Yes. Simply do a Google search for Eddowes and prostitute. See what comes up.

            Although it would be attempting to prove a negative if anyone can conclusively show she was not a prostitute then by all means do so.

            The bottom line is that I think it is quite a coincidence that both Stride and Eddowes were alleged to be prostitutes. Take that for what you think it is worth.

            c.d.
            But is there a plausible explantion other than prostitution as to why she ended up in Mitre Square with what would seem to be a complete stranger?

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              Hello Juniper,

              I do think she was going to meet someone or at least looking for someone. She had a lot to drink that evening apparently. Could someone have been buying her drinks and was she looking for that someone? Could very well be.

              c.d.
              I think thats part of the story cd. And it has nothing to do with prostitution,.. that being a very important detail. The very nature of a streetwalkers lifestyle enables the killer, they actually look for strangers and go to dark places willingly with them. Was Mitre Square dark? Oh yeah. Did he do the extractions in the dark on that spot...probably. Might have done it in one of a few empty warehouses in that square. But thats not what our focus is, is it...its who killed her. Was this Jack? Well I suggest that similar cutting, though seen as less competent by the man who examined Annie, isnt the litmus test...its the manner and circumstances of her murder that would reveal who killed her. There is within the witness statements for Kates murder by someone who knew her well that suggest Kate was sure she knew who was behind the recent killings, and although not a massive reward was waiting, it was privately offered and there for the taking.. in the form of 2 donors donations I believe. She intended to claim the reward and give a name, or names, to the police. Do you know what a "rat" was called in those days....someone who would rat out people they knew by repeating gossip or stories that suggest crimes committed..usually for a fee, and to the police. Noses. Look at the picture of Kate in the morgue, now...does it appear her nose was somewhat important to her killer?

              The fact that Kate was abdominally mutilated after having her throat deeply cut is compelling when considering Jack as the man, but does this appear as Jacks work...or is it Jacks work?

              Ive always maintained that within the potential motives lie the killers, and that repetition of face value characteristics are not suggestive of deeply ingrained actions. Ones that are a part of any killer...the reason he, or she, kills. The way he or she kills can be emulated, the motive for killing however would remain unalterable. A fixed point. Why did Annie die? Because her killer chose her apparently randomly and he wanted to kill a woman so he could mutilate her abdomen. In her particular case it was believed it was all done to acquire what he took intact..her uterus.

              Now...is that Kates murder? Do the circumstances and ultimate objectives sit easily with prior crimes? Or would it require modifying the killers profile to now include less specific mutilations and superfluous cutting. And fluctuating competencies.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • During a murder investigation of this kind how many times do we hear of people claiming to have known who the killer was? How many innocent people have been questioned by police just because x said that they were guilty? Catherine might well have claimed to have known the killer and she might have believed it to have been true? Or perhaps she owed money and used this as a way of trying to hold her creditor at bay? Can we even be certain that she had actually said this? Either way it’s hard to see how we can use this as a reason for her being in Mitre Square. Her reason for being in Mitre Square is an unknown but obviously there must have been a reason that she’d headed in that direction. Maybe she knew a friend who might have put her up for the night or lent her some money?

                Is it reasonable to conclude, when we look at the horrendous mutilations that Chapman and Eddowes were subjected to, that they were the work of 2 different perpetrators? The chances alone must be astronomically against it. The only reasonable conclusion has to be that they were killed by the same man.
                Regards

                Herlock



                “All conspiracy theories are the product of the subconscious attempt of an ignorant yet creative mind to counteract the fear of the unknown with the tales of fantasy.” Abhijit Naskar.

                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason - they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple with their wingnut delusions.” Mick Herron.

                ”The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.” Shannon L. Alder.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  During a murder investigation of this kind how many times do we hear of people claiming to have known who the killer was? How many innocent people have been questioned by police just because x said that they were guilty? Catherine might well have claimed to have known the killer and she might have believed it to have been true? Or perhaps she owed money and used this as a way of trying to hold her creditor at bay? Can we even be certain that she had actually said this? Either way it’s hard to see how we can use this as a reason for her being in Mitre Square. Her reason for being in Mitre Square is an unknown but obviously there must have been a reason that she’d headed in that direction. Maybe she knew a friend who might have put her up for the night or lent her some money?

                  Is it reasonable to conclude, when we look at the horrendous mutilations that Chapman and Eddowes were subjected to, that they were the work of 2 different perpetrators? The chances alone must be astronomically against it. The only reasonable conclusion has to be that they were killed by the same man.
                  its not logical to disregard the circumstances or the differences that exist Herlock, just finding some matching details isnt validation its the same man. Youre speculating on why Kate was there, really good question since its in the opposite direction of her claimed residence and its 1:30 in the morning. Those details are important. Not whether her abdomen was mutilated. Yes.. it was, but with the same panache that was seen in Annies cuts? No, not according to the man who examined both of them...and 4 of the five Canonicals. Its clear by that fact alone that cuts in and of themselves are not that revealing. How, why and to what end they are made, can be.

                  The fact that all the murders are within a square mile, and occur within a 2 1/2 month period that Fall, cannot be used to make presumptions that only 1 man was faulty enough to commit them. Its relevant, but its not empirical evidence of anything.

                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    its not logical to disregard the circumstances or the differences that exist Herlock, just finding some matching details isnt validation its the same man. Youre speculating on why Kate was there, really good question since its in the opposite direction of her claimed residence and its 1:30 in the morning. Those details are important. Not whether her abdomen was mutilated. Yes.. it was, but with the same panache that was seen in Annies cuts? No, not according to the man who examined both of them...and 4 of the five Canonicals. Its clear by that fact alone that cuts in and of themselves are not that revealing. How, why and to what end they are made, can be.

                    The fact that all the murders are within a square mile, and occur within a 2 1/2 month period that Fall, cannot be used to make presumptions that only 1 man was faulty enough to commit them. Its relevant, but its not empirical evidence of anything.
                    My view is that the Whitechapel murders were a combination of nothing more than murder and mutilation, with the exception of Stride. So I would expect to see variations in the method of mutilation which we in fact do see.

                    I know that there are those who will quote the facts that is is unikely two murders ocurred on the same night Stride/Eddowes as being the work of two different killers. But there is nothing really to suggest that the same killer was responsibe for both of those murders, because they are so different in each killers MO and all the different facts surrounding each of those two murders.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      My view is that the Whitechapel murders were a combination of nothing more than murder and mutilation, with the exception of Stride. So I would expect to see variations in the method of mutilation which we in fact do see.

                      I know that there are those who will quote the facts that is is unikely two murders ocurred on the same night Stride/Eddowes as being the work of two different killers. But there is nothing really to suggest that the same killer was responsibe for both of those murders, because they are so different in each killers MO and all the different facts surrounding each of those two murders.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      The fact is Trevor that 3 women had their throats slit that night, but only 1 was mutilated after that. 1 was solved, leaving us with 2 murders which are not alike. I agree with you on Stride...no surprise,...but I see the variations in actions taken and cuts made as indicators of different killers. The Unsolved Files have what, 12-13 murders in them? People assume 5 are by one man, which to me reveals the FACT that more than 1 killer killed during that period in time, and in that area. Its never been unclear that more than one killer committed these, its just a matter of how many under 1 knife.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Although I'm of the belief that JTR is responsible for the deaths of Tabram. Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and McKenzie, I'm still of the opinion that MJK was killed/slaughtered by Joseph Barnett. One instance that interests me is the knife attack on Annie Millwood. Though there were no witnesses to the attack, she was stabbed multiple times and subsequently admitted the Whitechapel Infirmary. I'm wondering if JTR could possibly have been testing his knife/method/approach on her. M O's change, a comparatively short while at times.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Christian View Post

                          Great point regarding the double event!! Historically how often do two woman die within 1 mile of each other similar neck wound and on the same night??? Been saying this for years!! Still doubters say Stride not a Ripper victim SOME coincidence or statistically amazing!!! Just saying
                          Hi Christian,

                          I always wonder if even the most adamant Stride excluders would think the same if the murders had only happened recently.

                          Added to which, there have been several genuine, well documented double events by repeat offenders in the decades since the ripper murders, which provide plenty of food for thought and material for comparison purposes, which ought to be fully taken into account before anyone rules Stride out over perceived differences.

                          In any solved series of crimes, we would expect to see many differences as well as similarities, and these can all be instructive when considering the Whitechapel cases we discuss here, and deciding which differences/similarities are significant enough to safely exclude or include a particular victim on that basis.

                          The argument often goes that that was then, and this is now, and today's serial predators can't be compared in any meaningful way with one who operated so long ago. All four of my grandparents were on the verge of adulthood in 1888, and I see no evidence that the human condition has changed significantly since then, or why the ripper would have been a different creature from today's crop, in terms of his biological or psychological make-up.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                            Even if we could prove that Eddowes did not engage in prostitution ever does that mean she could not have been a Ripper victim? No. We still have the throat cutting and mutilation.

                            c.d.
                            Even if Eddowes had no intention of offering her killer anything beyond her company, as they walked together to that dark corner of Mitre Square, he could have taken her for someone who was willing for half a shilling. The result would have been the same. It's the killer's twisted perception of women that matters, not what each victim was doing in his company.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              I think thats part of the story cd. And it has nothing to do with prostitution,.. that being a very important detail. The very nature of a streetwalkers lifestyle enables the killer, they actually look for strangers and go to dark places willingly with them. Was Mitre Square dark? Oh yeah. Did he do the extractions in the dark on that spot...probably. Might have done it in one of a few empty warehouses in that square. But thats not what our focus is, is it...its who killed her. Was this Jack? Well I suggest that similar cutting, though seen as less competent by the man who examined Annie, isnt the litmus test...its the manner and circumstances of her murder that would reveal who killed her. There is within the witness statements for Kates murder by someone who knew her well that suggest Kate was sure she knew who was behind the recent killings, and although not a massive reward was waiting, it was privately offered and there for the taking.. in the form of 2 donors donations I believe. She intended to claim the reward and give a name, or names, to the police. Do you know what a "rat" was called in those days....someone who would rat out people they knew by repeating gossip or stories that suggest crimes committed..usually for a fee, and to the police. Noses. Look at the picture of Kate in the morgue, now...does it appear her nose was somewhat important to her killer?

                              The fact that Kate was abdominally mutilated after having her throat deeply cut is compelling when considering Jack as the man, but does this appear as Jacks work...or is it Jacks work?

                              Ive always maintained that within the potential motives lie the killers, and that repetition of face value characteristics are not suggestive of deeply ingrained actions. Ones that are a part of any killer...the reason he, or she, kills. The way he or she kills can be emulated, the motive for killing however would remain unalterable. A fixed point. Why did Annie die? Because her killer chose her apparently randomly and he wanted to kill a woman so he could mutilate her abdomen. In her particular case it was believed it was all done to acquire what he took intact..her uterus.

                              Now...is that Kates murder? Do the circumstances and ultimate objectives sit easily with prior crimes? Or would it require modifying the killers profile to now include less specific mutilations and superfluous cutting. And fluctuating competencies.
                              The killer would have been modifying his own profile all the time, or having it modified for him, depending on each new set of circumstances, so we wouldn't expect to see a carbon copy of his first crime, with any of his subsequent crimes. To use an example close to your own heart, Michael, if Chapman's killer was incarcerated before the double event, then his profile was now modified to the extent that he was now, effectively, a non-ripper, just like Stride's killer. He would have been interrupted by the men in white coats before he could go out and grab himself another menopausal specimen.

                              You could argue that there was more urgency and less competency shown in Mitre Square than in Hanbury Street, because Eddowes's killer had something extra to prove that night, and was determined not to go home empty-handed. Taking two body parts would have made up for the shortfall, if an earlier attempt to lure a woman away from a busy location left him with nothing to show for his trouble. One could even argue that the Jews at the club were the men he blamed for leaving him with 'nothing'.



                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                Hi Christian,

                                I always wonder if even the most adamant Stride excluders would think the same if the murders had only happened recently.

                                Added to which, there have been several genuine, well documented double events by repeat offenders in the decades since the ripper murders, which provide plenty of food for thought and material for comparison purposes, which ought to be fully taken into account before anyone rules Stride out over perceived differences.

                                In any solved series of crimes, we would expect to see many differences as well as similarities, and these can all be instructive when considering the Whitechapel cases we discuss here, and deciding which differences/similarities are significant enough to safely exclude or include a particular victim on that basis.

                                The argument often goes that that was then, and this is now, and today's serial predators can't be compared in any meaningful way with one who operated so long ago. All four of my grandparents were on the verge of adulthood in 1888, and I see no evidence that the human condition has changed significantly since then, or why the ripper would have been a different creature from today's crop, in terms of his biological or psychological make-up.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Afternoon Caz
                                yes you make some valid points that I agree with! I don’t think psychologically we have changed -evolved that much!! The fact he was disturbed or ran out of time with Stride does offer certain anomaly’s with her injuries! Hence he prowled Aldgate! No way personally can I dismiss Stride as a victim as I stated two woman killed same night less than a mile apart both throats cut !! Some coincidence if I’m wrong
                                christian x

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X