Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Money

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

  • Money

    Near the end of Hallie Rubenhold’s The Five is a short section entitled A Life in Objects. It lists, for each of the first four canonical Ripper victims, the clothing and possessions that were on their person when their bodies were removed from the crime scenes. It’s striking that none of these lists includes any money.

    We know that Elisabeth Stride had 6 pence she’d earned that afternoon when she left the boarding house where she was staying for the last time. The other women were likely penniless when they took to the streets one final time. Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman were outdoors because they didn’t have money to pay for a bed. Catharine Eddowes had probably spent any money she did have getting so drunk that she was held in a police cell for 4 hours before being released onto the streets.

    If the Ripper had approached any of the women in the guise of a customer, the normal practice would be for payment to be made before any intimacy took place. After he’d finished with Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman and Catharine Eddowes, the Ripper probably retrieved his payments from their bodies. We know the Ripper searched the pockets of Annie Chapman and Catharine Eddowes, because he laid out the contents beside their bodies. However, in the case of Elisabeth Stride, it’s unlikely he had the opportunity to reclaim his money, because he was interrupted before he’d finished with her.

    Of course, any money still on the bodies after their removal from the crime scenes could have been appropriated by the staff at the mortuaries where they were taken. It’s apparent there was no attention paid to the chain of custody for the corpses.

    However, there might be other reasons for no money being found on the bodies. These other reasons are highly speculative. They may well have been previously considered but dismissed. On the other hand, they may suggest some potential avenues for further research.

    If the Ripper was a regular customer of each woman, it’s possible he would be trusted enough for them to forego advance payment. At first glance, the idea that one man would frequently consort with the same 5 women may seem extremely unlikely. It implies a strong libido and more-than-average-for-the-neighbourhood disposable income. But all the women walked the same small territory, drank more than was good for them and were always short of money. All were middle-aged except Mary Jane Kelly. All had volatile relationships with the men they sometimes lived with.

    Another possibility is that the Ripper approached the women not as a customer but in some other guise. He could have worn an easily recognisable uniform that encouraged the women to drop their guard, such as a Metropolitan Police constable or a Salvation Army captain. Perhaps he extended an offer of financial assistance, purportedly without any strings attached.

    The Ripper being a regular customer or a safe authority figure would also explain why, even at the height of the Ripper scare, the women were willing to go alone to a secluded area with their killer.

    Are these possibilities too far out?

  • #2
    I'm not sure any of these possibilities are correct, but none are so far out as to be completely ruled out. I lean towards the killer being relatively prosperous. Kelly was noted for her looks and trusted the killer enough to let him into her room.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Fiver View Post
      I'm not sure any of these possibilities are correct, but none are so far out as to be completely ruled out. I lean towards the killer being relatively prosperous. Kelly was noted for her looks and trusted the killer enough to let him into her room.
      Strange how the same evidence can lead people to opposite conclusions. I think it points to the perp being of poorer stock. I think the killer probably took back any money he gave to the victims.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jason_c View Post

        Strange how the same evidence can lead people to opposite conclusions. I think it points to the perp being of poorer stock. I think the killer probably took back any money he gave to the victims.
        I tend to agree with you here. Removing anything that ties him directly to the victim.
        Best wishes,

        Tristan

        Comment


        • #5
          It could be that the Ripper was relatively poor so he took back any money he gave to the victims.

          It could be that the Ripper was relatively well off but like some well off people every penny mattered and he took the money back.

          It could be that relatively poor or well off he would be damned if some whore had any of his money and he took the money back.

          Take your pick.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

            I tend to agree with you here. Removing anything that ties him directly to the victim.
            Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the money would be viewed as sort of a trophy, a reminder of what had taken place? Because I don't see how money could be traced to him so that he took it as a precaution.

            c.d.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              It could be that the Ripper was relatively poor so he took back any money he gave to the victims.

              It could be that the Ripper was relatively well off but like some well off people every penny mattered and he took the money back.

              It could be that relatively poor or well off he would be damned if some whore had any of his money and he took the money back.

              Take your pick.

              c.d.
              That first option is far, far more likely though.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jason_c View Post

                I think the killer probably took back any money he gave to the victims.
                Bingo.
                Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                JayHartley.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  It would appear that JtR took any money he would have had to have given them (on the presumption one pays for things first of course), although one might wonder when he was supposed to have the time to do so in the Stride case.

                  If one goes with the "interrupted just as he kills her" idea (usually Diemshutz is suggested to be the interruption, but it could have been a noise in the club), she doesn't appear to have had her clothes searched in any manner. Perhaps they were and the evidence of it lost. Or, perhaps she didn't solicit JtR, or refused his advances, etc. That would tally with the description of the events Schwartz reports in that he says he followed along behind Broad Shoulders when he (BS) seems to suddenly attack Stride. It's not clear what, if anything, prompted that attack, but if we suppose for the moment that B.S. kills Stride then it doesn't appear there was any opportunity for money to have exchanged between them.

                  Hmmm, might this be an indirect (and certainly not conclusive) indication that B.S. was Stride's killer, and therefore potentially JtR? I've not fully thought all of this through, but thought I would share the idea nonetheless. More minds better thinking.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    For the umpteenth time ..... BS Man was pulling Stride out of the alley and on to the street!
                    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by DJA View Post
                      For the umpteenth time ..... BS Man was pulling Stride out of the alley and on to the street!
                      I guess I missed the part where Schwartz indicates that B.S. left the area and have always presumed it was self evident that events could still occur between Stride and B.S. even after Schwartz left the scene.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DJA View Post
                        For the umpteenth time ..... BS Man was pulling Stride out of the alley and on to the street!
                        It's Not that clear,,one of the versions says that, the other says just the opposite, pushed back towards the gates.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                          It's Not that clear,,one of the versions says that, the other says just the opposite, pushed back towards the gates.
                          Any reputable London newspaper purport that BS Man pushed her into the alley?
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            12:45 AM (approximately): Quoting Home Office File:

                            "Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour, turning into Berner Street from Commercial Road, and having gotten as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway. He tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not very loudly. On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man lighting his pipe. The man who threw the woman down called out, apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road, "Lipski", and then Schwartz walked away, but finding that he was followed by the second man, he ran as far as the railway arch, but the man did not follow so far.
                            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Lets go with the Official version that eye witness Schwartz gave , that Chief Inspector Swanson reported as ''reliable'' befor we start to accept any unsubstanciated newspaper articles.

                              That which is

                              ' ''The man tried to pull the women into the street but turned her around and threw her down on the footway''
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X