Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Self inflicted' - seriously?

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

  • Scorpio
    replied
    Annie Farmer was also suspected of inflicting injuries upon herself.
    I find the allegations absurd.

    Leave a comment:


  • Errata
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post
    Bedford or Bradford??

    Show's how well known it is.
    I drive through Bedford County every day. So that was some weird cognitive car wreck in my head.

    Bradford has pears right?

    Leave a comment:


  • martin wilson
    replied
    Hi all

    I believe Belgium was one destination of the white slave traders, at least according to the press, IIRC there was an enquiry which found that it was moral panic largely without substance, although it did state that any women who did end up there were 'in the trade' already so to speak.

    I actually thought female impersonator for the Bradford case, but it is disturbing to think we may have something like the Moors murderers in the 19th century. I think it's possible there were a couple of vagrants wandering around but it's something that will require a lot more research.

    All the best.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by Errata View Post
    Is Bedford a town white slavers would go? I mean, London, sure. It's big, they've heard of it, it has boats to get cargo out. But Bedford? Isn't that the English equivalent to Kansas?

    One of these United States that not only has never had white slavers, but remains one of seven states that never even had general rumors of white slavery, making Kansas a cultural anomaly worthy of a mention in a social psych class.
    Bedford or Bradford??

    Show's how well known it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Errata
    replied
    Originally posted by Rosella View Post
    Bradford was a prosperous textile town in the last half of the 19th century. It had a population of over 216,300 people in the borough alone in 1891. More than enough for a red light district. Weren't there worries about 'the white slave trade' and females being kidnapped to supply it at that time?
    Is Bedford a town white slavers would go? I mean, London, sure. It's big, they've heard of it, it has boats to get cargo out. But Bedford? Isn't that the English equivalent to Kansas?

    One of these United States that not only has never had white slavers, but remains one of seven states that never even had general rumors of white slavery, making Kansas a cultural anomaly worthy of a mention in a social psych class.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rosella
    replied
    Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
    Maybe I've watched too much "Ripper Street" and "Copper" in my time, but the notion that the woman was procuring a child victim for one of her clients with "special requirements" was the first thing I thought of... Was Bradford big enough to support a brothel? Or a small village?
    Bradford was a prosperous textile town in the last half of the 19th century. It had a population of over 216,300 people in the borough alone in 1891. More than enough for a red light district. Weren't there worries about 'the white slave trade' and females being kidnapped to supply it at that time?

    Leave a comment:


  • Pcdunn
    replied
    Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post

    Pcdunn -- I am such a mad, mad fan of Ripper Street... I must spazz about it soon in the appropriate thread. And WHY did they take Copper away?! WHY?

    Anyway. This thread is a great excuse to trawl old papers, one of my favourite things to do.
    "Ripper Street" was great. I hear it may be returning somewhere, somehow, but no sign of it yet here.
    "Copper", as far as I know, is returning, as previous episodes are available On Demand now. Sorry if they took it away in your neck of the woods...

    Leave a comment:


  • Ausgirl
    replied
    Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
    Maybe I've watched too much "Ripper Street" and "Copper" in my time, but the notion that the woman was procuring a child victim for one of her clients with "special requirements" was the first thing I thought of... Was Bradford big enough to support a brothel? Or a small village?
    But there again - being offered enough money, if you're desperate enough, might lead a woman to do something she doesn't want to, or wouldn't normally dream of. So procurer-with-a-conscience is about neck and neck with the reluctant accomplice again.

    Pcdunn -- I am such a mad, mad fan of Ripper Street... I must spazz about it soon in the appropriate thread. And WHY did they take Copper away?! WHY?

    Anyway. This thread is a great excuse to trawl old papers, one of my favourite things to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ausgirl
    replied
    Yup, E - I'd go your reluctant accomplice, or my paid procurer (or any other sort of not-so-reluctant accomplice).

    Probably more inclined to go the former, actually; can't think of why on earth a procurer would bring her back in that state.. or at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pcdunn
    replied
    Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post
    Another strange one... female sadist? Procurer?
    Maybe I've watched too much "Ripper Street" and "Copper" in my time, but the notion that the woman was procuring a child victim for one of her clients with "special requirements" was the first thing I thought of... Was Bradford big enough to support a brothel? Or a small village?

    Leave a comment:


  • Errata
    replied
    Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post
    Another strange one... female sadist? Procurer?
    Reluctant accomplice? That particular child was horribly abused. Female kidnappers don't return children as a rule, and female molesters do not abduct to practice sadism. Typically they prey on their own kids. Sadism in women tends to be intensely personal. They want to control a person's suffering from birth to death (thus hell hath no fury etc.). They don't want a kid for six hours. On the other hand, male sadist and abusers do work this way. And it's not especially uncommon for these men to have a wife, a partner, a girlfriend so victimized that they help.

    An unwilling accomplice might take a child to help her partner. There are many situations is which a person cannot do anything other than what they are told because a metaphorical or literal gun is pointed at their head. But killing for someone, especially a kid is a whole other thing. It makes sense to me that she took the girl for her partner, and then returned her when he was done to save the child's life.

    Not because women can't be monsters, let me be clear. When women go wrong they beat men at it every time. But this kind of torture is a guy thing. Female torture looks different. Worse than men, but still different.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ausgirl
    replied
    Originally posted by martin wilson View Post

    Amy Carter 3, Rebecca Street Bradford,
    Decoyed away with sweets by a shabbily dressed woman. Returned late at night insensible but alive by a muffled woman who immediately ran away, She was found to be covered in weals and bruises intermingled with burns as though from a red hot poker.

    All the best.
    Another strange one... female sadist? Procurer?

    Leave a comment:


  • martin wilson
    replied
    Hi all

    Good point made by PC Dunn about the huntsman, perhaps that's why he spent so much time with her, working up the courage.

    In a 1903 article on Broadmoor (studymore) T .W. Griffith informs us that of less than 200 women, 120 were committed for murdering their child or children.
    I don't think infanticide is the brief of this thread, in the vast majority of cases these women were not motivated in the same way as a SK, and it must inevitably involve a discussion about the socio-economic stressors of the era.
    but I do note that throat cutting, drowning and dismemberment were common causes of death.

    BRADFORD OUTRAGE 19th November 1892.

    Violet Brown 4, of Brooklyn Street Bradford, found in a rubbish heap, outraged and murdered (no details yet on COD).

    BRADFORD OUTRAGE 22nd September 1893

    Amy Carter 3, Rebecca Street Bradford,
    Decoyed away with sweets by a shabbily dressed woman. Returned late at night insensible but alive by a muffled woman who immediately ran away, She was found to be covered in weals and bruises intermingled with burns as though from a red hot poker.

    All the best.

    Leave a comment:


  • Errata
    replied
    Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post
    What alias did Fish use when meeting the Budd family?

    Frank Howard. He chose his middle name, Frank, and Howard because it 'just seemed to come into his mind at the time.' Using this false identity, Fish gained the trust of Albert and Delia Budd, simple people who could not imagine that such a 'kindly gentleman farmer' would bring any harm to their daughter.

    In 1935, 65 year-old Albert Fish went on trial in New York City. The charge was first degree murder. As the trial progressed, the public discovered that murder was just one of his interests.


    Actually, from what I can tell.. Fish was in the Manhattan area in 1915. He was in jail in 1903, but was out by 1910 and attacking kids again. I wonder if he was ever a serious suspect for these crimes.
    Does it seem odd that Albert Fish falls into the category of "Fun trivia"?

    I think there's a difference between using an alias and giving the credit to an actual if unknown killer. Everything Fish did was about him. Even his confessions were about him.

    Jello has walked into the room. Gotta go!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ausgirl
    replied
    Originally posted by Errata View Post
    I too thought of Fish.

    But I always considered him a narcissist, so adopting another name just seems unlike him.
    What alias did Fish use when meeting the Budd family?

    Frank Howard. He chose his middle name, Frank, and Howard because it 'just seemed to come into his mind at the time.' Using this false identity, Fish gained the trust of Albert and Delia Budd, simple people who could not imagine that such a 'kindly gentleman farmer' would bring any harm to their daughter.

    In 1935, 65 year-old Albert Fish went on trial in New York City. The charge was first degree murder. As the trial progressed, the public discovered that murder was just one of his interests.


    Actually, from what I can tell.. Fish was in the Manhattan area in 1915. He was in jail in 1903, but was out by 1910 and attacking kids again. I wonder if he was ever a serious suspect for these crimes.
    Last edited by Ausgirl; 02-12-2015, 07:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X