the victims werent prostitutes

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have to say that I have never understood this line of thinking. Are we to assume that they all swore some sort of sacred oath that they would not exchange sex for money on a particular night before venturing out on the street? They were poor, destitute women with a fondness for drink. How can we say with any certainty what they would do if approached by a potential customer?

c.d.

Exactly c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is strange to me,Herlock,is that Nichols, who wanted accomodation that night,and had been offered a place to doss,turned down that offer.For what reason?Once that offer had been made,it negated the need to seek other means of obtaining shelter.So why the need to prostitute herself?

Maybe she was very independant Harry and wanted to pay for her own bed with money that she’d earned herself? Maybe she wasn’t all that keen on spending the night with Emily Holland?

The police did not have to be benevolent with Eddowes.She was already in custody,all that was needed was an extended stay of a few hours,which would have been within their power to grant.That she would leave shelter,and instead prostitute herself to finance other shelter,seems a ridiculous,to me,proposition.

Maybe she just didn’t want to spend the night in custody? Maybe she had somewhere she intended to go?

Now,suppose the killer was a person who could offer no payment.

The killer would only have had to have told his victim that he could pay.

Even if any of these women weren’t actively soliciting it doesn’t preclude the idea of them taking the opportunity to earn a few pennies when it arose.

[c.d.]

On what basis can you say "were likely not out soliciting". I don't think we have the least idea what they were doing, what their killer thought they were doing, or what they might have been persuaded to do before they were killed. If they had prostituted themselves in the past, and there are grounds for believing that they had, then that perhaps suggests a predisposition to do so again if the need or incentives were right.

I have to say that I have never understood this line of thinking. Are we to assume that they all swore some sort of sacred oath that they would not exchange sex for money on a particular night before venturing out on the street? They were poor, destitute women with a fondness for drink. How can we say with any certainty what they would do if approached by a potential customer?

c.d.

[PaulB]

Thanks for lightening the moment Robert, but when addressing the thread question the existing evidence suggests that at least 3 women within this Canonical Group that has been created were likely not out soliciting when they met their killer(s). Which is a dramatic change from a killer who accesses women without money and a bed who are desperate enough to take strangers to dark corners.

I would put that piece of the MO, which is created by using Polly and Annies murders, as a primary part of the puzzle.

On what basis can you say "were likely not out soliciting". I don't think we have the least idea what they were doing, what their killer thought they were doing, or what they might have been persuaded to do before they were killed. If they had prostituted themselves in the past, and there are grounds for believing that they had, then that perhaps suggests a predisposition to do so again if the need or incentives were right.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

John Davies, tenant of 29 Hanbury Street who discovered the body at 6.00 am, testified—

“Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the left hand recess, between the stone steps and the fence.”

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

I think you've hit on something, Michael : the victims were killed because they gave the wrong answer to philosophical questions. Chapman made a blunder with free will; Nichols refused to believe in Plato's theory of Forms; Stride mocked Kant's Categorical Imperative; Eddowes said "cogito ergo the sum is fourpence"; and Kelly said St Anselm's ontological argument was 'a load of bollocks.'

Thanks for lightening the moment Robert, but when addressing the thread question the existing evidence suggests that at least 3 women within this Canonical Group that has been created were likely not out soliciting when they met their killer(s). Which is a dramatic change from a killer who accesses women without money and a bed who are desperate enough to take strangers to dark corners.

I would put that piece of the MO, which is created by using Polly and Annies murders, as a primary part of the puzzle.

[Robert]

I fear you're right, Paul. I shall have to do Dr Munson's roses after all.

[PaulB]

I think you've hit on something, Michael : the victims were killed because they gave the wrong answer to philosophical questions. Chapman made a blunder with free will; Nichols refused to believe in Plato's theory of Forms; Stride mocked Kant's Categorical Imperative; Eddowes said "cogito ergo the sum is fourpence"; and Kelly said St Anselm's ontological argument was 'a load of bollocks.'

Isn't there a possibility, perhaps remote but nevertheless to be given serious consideration, that this is just slightly unlikely?

[Sam Flynn]

Kelly said St Anselm's ontological argument was 'a load of bollocks.'

She had a point there.

[Robert]

I think you've hit on something, Michael : the victims were killed because they gave the wrong answer to philosophical questions. Chapman made a blunder with free will; Nichols refused to believe in Plato's theory of Forms; Stride mocked Kant's Categorical Imperative; Eddowes said "cogito ergo the sum is fourpence"; and Kelly said St Anselm's ontological argument was 'a load of bollocks.'

[Wickerman]

Manchester Guardian, 10th September 1888, followed up on the story of the bloodstains in the Evening News—

“The theory primarily formed was that the unfortunate victim had been first murdered and afterwards dragged through the entry into the back yard, but from an inspection made later in the day it appears that the murder was actually committed in the corner of the yard, which the back door when open places in obscurity [this last detail wasn't true].”

"Back door" should read "gate", being the gate at the right side of the entrance which when opened would not lay flat against the wall, but may obscure the body close to the house wall.

[harry]

What is strange to me,Herlock,is that Nichols, who wanted accomodation that night,and had been offered a place to doss,turned down that offer.For what reason?Once that offer had been made,it negated the need to seek other means of obtaining shelter.So why the need to prostitute herself?

The police did not have to be benevolent with Eddowes.She was already in custody,all that was needed was an extended stay of a few hours,which would have been within their power to grant.That she would leave shelter,and instead prostitute herself to finance other shelter,seems a ridiculous,to me,proposition.


Now,suppose the killer was a person who could offer no payment.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

[Coroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive?

[Dr. Phillips] I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard.

The People, 9th September 1888—"By those who know the place well it is believed that the woman was murdered in the street and afterwards carried into the passage. This view is, to a certain extent, borne out by traces of blood, which reach to the street. There is, moreover, nothing in the appearance of the ground to indicate a struggle."

Manchester Guardian, 10th September 1888, followed up on the story of the bloodstains in the Evening News—

“The theory primarily formed was that the unfortunate victim had been first murdered and afterwards dragged through the entry into the back yard, but from an inspection made later in the day it appears that the murder was actually committed in the corner of the yard, which the back door when open places in obscurity [this last detail wasn't true].”

“There were some marks of blood observable in the passage, but it is now known that these were caused during the work of removal of some packing cases, the edges of which accidentally came in contact with the blood upon the spot from which the unhappy victim was removed.”

Make of all this what you will.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Mrs Long saw Chapman ten minutes after Cadosch heard someone say "No."

Regarding Chapman's presence in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, the Evening News, 8th September, reported blood stains in the passage from the street door to the yard, suggesting that she had been carried into the yard.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Did any other sources back up the story of the blood stains? If they existed weren’t they more likely to have come from the killer Ashe left?

[Abby Normal]

When Cadosch said that he heard the word ‘no’ perhaps Annie had just been asked “do we have free will?”

now that's funny