Annie Chapman-------- In Memoriam [Archive] - JTRForums.com - THE place to be for All Things Ripper

Adam Went

10-28-2006, 05:29 AM

Hi everyone,

A bit belated, I know, but just for the record, attached is a picture of a farthing. This one is from 1874, so it's probably fairly similar to the ones that were found with Annie, if infact any were.

That isn't my pic (www.tclayton.demon.co.uk (http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk) is the link) but I actually used to collect old coins so have a few laying around, including a farthing (and a penny from 1888, actually!), and I can tell you that for the Aussies here, they are just the tiniest smidgeon bigger than a 5 cent piece. For everyone else, that's a very small coin - probably about the same size as the end of your thumb, for lack of a better example.

Hope that helps!
Cheers,
Adam. :)

Tutto

10-28-2006, 02:01 PM

Now, I can understand better what this coin was. Only one more question. Did the farthings and the sovereigns had the same border ? I've read that one of them had an irregular one and this is how they could be differenciated.

And, please, tell me if anyone think the two farthings were really there !!

Thanks again

Magpie

10-29-2006, 01:34 AM

hey Tutto.

It's funny the things you learn around here--apparently in 1889 (and thereafter) farthings were artificially coloured precisely so that they would not be confused with the half-sovereign coin.

I think the farthings may have been there, but the "deliberately placed" part is likely an exagerration that became part of the legend.

Adam Went

10-29-2006, 02:40 AM

G'day Tutto,

Unfortunately I can't really answer your question about the borders on the sovereign coin, as that's one coin I don't have. One weird thing I just realised, though, is that it appears the farthing in the picture that I posted is smooth around the outside, whereas the farthing I own, which is the Australian version of the coin and is from 1952, actually is grated around the outside.
Does anyone know if this is simply because the farthing in Australia and England had 2 different borders, or did the design of the farthing change some time between the late 1800's - 1950ish? Coin expert needed!!!

By the way, for those of you interested in seeing more of the type of money Jack and his victims would have used, I'm working on a brief little article with lots of photos from all these old coins I have here, just to show what the different coins were like back in the days of JTR. Watch this space, I'll try and have it on here by tomorrow. :)

Anyway, back to your post, Tutto. To answer your question about whether the coins were really there or not, like Magpie, I think there's probably some truth to it, but it's probably been distorted or exaggerated over the years. "Deliberately placed" isn't something I really believe in either. It's an interesting aspect of the case if it really did happen, though!

Cheers,
Adam.

Tutto

10-30-2006, 05:15 AM

Hi Magpie and Adam !

Interesting to know that you both believe the farthings were there...I'm a newcomer to this (mine)field and some authors (i.e. Mr. Sugden) excludes absolutely the presence of this coins at Annie Chapman murder spot...And, this was, as you know, one of the (many)objections made by Mr. Harris to the Maybrick Diary, that show it as a modern forgery.

Going back to the farthings, in a spanish version of Tom Cullen's Autumn of Terror, we can read that half sovereigns were smooth around the outside and farthings were grated around the outside. He states too that a veteran street walker could never been deceived with this cheap trick, because they checked the borders of the coins...(if she was not the worse for drink, I should add!! :offinhead: )

It's funny the things you learn around here--apparently in 1889 (and thereafter) farthings were artificially coloured precisely so that they would not be confused with the half-sovereign coin.

I agree completely with you, Magpie :judge: and will be around here waiting for your Coins article; thank you, friends:thumbsupbud:

Adam Went

10-30-2006, 07:04 AM

Hey Tutto,

Thanks for solving the question of the differences in borders between farthings and sovereings -- another little mystery out of the way! :)

I guess it's largely just a matter of gut feeling about whether the coins were really there or not - I'd like to believe they were actually at the site of the murder, but as I said before, if there was, I doubt they were deliberately placed there. Phil Sugden in particular is a great authority on the case though, and he could well be right. Whatever, it's a very interesting aspect of the case.

By the way, the piece I'm doing on the coins, which I've titled "Jack's Money", is just about to be sent in to Howard, and if he's in a nice, friendly mood (yeah, those are rare, but we might be lucky... :p ) hopefully it'll be on here very soon. So, I hope you all find it interesting!

Cheers,
Adam.

Tom_Wescott

10-30-2006, 10:41 AM

I think the farthings may have been there, but the "deliberately placed" part is likely an exagerration that became part of the legend.

"Deliberately placed" isn't something I really believe in either. It's an interesting aspect of the case if it really did happen, though!

It's interesting to see this, because it's a matter of record that the items at Chapman's feet appeared to be 'arranged', whereas the presence of coins is not part of the record (aside from Reid's later comment). In fact, the ONLY suggestion that something 'else' was placed at Chapman's feet is Dr. Phillips' observation that items were deliberately arranged, since otherwise we're left with only two items at her feet, and any two items can only land on top of each other or in a straight line, making it difficult to determine intentional arrangement. However, if coins were found at her feet, along with the other items, it would make sense of Dr. Phillips' observation. If you dismiss the observation, then there's no reason to suppose coins were there.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tutto

10-30-2006, 11:35 AM

Hello Tom;

Very interesting your last post; I think we can see another point of view at Philip Sugden "The Complete History...". He says at the end of page 111 that "The sum of genuine evidence, then, is quite clear. The rings were not recovered and the only items discovered by the feet of the body were a muslin handkerchief and two combs".

So, there were tree items in a straight line, if we believe Mr. Sugden, with no farthings. And this way we can understand Dr.Philips' asertion too.

As you said;
If you dismiss the observation, then there's no reason to suppose coins were there.

Tom_Wescott

10-30-2006, 01:52 PM

With all due respect to Sugden, I believe there was a piece of muslin and ONE comb in a paper wrapper. To make this into three items, you'd need to remove the comb from the wrapper and lay them separately. Not sure if the comb was in its wrapper (or case, if you prefer) or not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Wickerman

10-30-2006, 07:30 PM

.....Going back to the farthings, in a spanish version of Tom Cullen's Autumn of Terror, we can read that half sovereigns were smooth around the outside and farthings were grated around the outside.

Tutto.
Are you sure you got that right?, all the farthings I had & still have are smooth around the circumference (edge). I don't recall ever seeing a half-sovereign but coins like the two-shilling piece & half-crown both had cerated edges (small lines etched around the circumference).
I have Cullen's book in English but can't remember where such a claim might be.

Jon

Tutto

10-31-2006, 10:43 AM

Hello Tom and WM;

I'll answer your questions;

Tom;

About the arranged items; in the same book, page 86; Sugden says:

A macabre discovery awaited them near the palings and close to where the feet of the dead woman had rested. It comprised a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb and a pocket comb in a paper case.

And, as you show and I've checked in the Times reference to Insp. Chandler and Dr. Phillips at "JTR Sourcebook", there were "piece of coarse muslin and a small pocket haircomb in a paper case"...with no reference to the tooth comb here:confused:

We need a third opinion here !! :rolleyes:

WM; You are plumb right :thumbsupbud: because I've made a mistake when I wrote it down, it was viceversa; sovereigns were grated around the outside and farthings were smooth around the outside...Sorry but "English is not my first languaje"

P.S. In spanish edition you can find it at Chapter "Yard of number 29" Epigraph number 5.

Chris G.

10-31-2006, 11:34 AM

Tutto.
Are you sure you got that right?, all the farthings I had & still have are smooth around the circumference (edge). I don't recall ever seeing a half-sovereign but coins like the two-shilling piece & half-crown both had cerated edges (small lines etched around the circumference).
I have Cullen's book in English but can't remember where such a claim might be.

Jon

Hi Jon and Tutto

The correct numismatic term is that the sovereigns and half sovereigns had a milled edge. As we have discussed here before, the mint also sought to stop people passing off shiny new farthings off as half sovereigns by putting a black finish on the coin.

Chris

Tutto

10-31-2006, 06:14 PM

It's good to know the exact term to speak about coins...as you probably know, English is not my first languaje, but I'm decided to learn !!;)

Thank you...and only a little question; Do you think the farthings were there? :D

Tom_Wescott

10-31-2006, 09:24 PM

Tutto,

There was one comb, dude.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Howard Brown

10-31-2006, 10:11 PM

Tutto:

I rechecked the Inquest report for Chapman and there is no mention of two combs. Its a case of Sugden making an error.

Adam Went

11-01-2006, 02:59 AM

Hi again everyone,

Tom:

That's a fair point, but I think there's good reason to believe Reid's later observations about the coins. And, as you mentioned, it could also explain Dr. Phillip's comments.

Besides that, it's important to remember that the police had just found the mutilated corpse of Annie Chapman, and surely none of the police or even the doctors had ever seen anything that brutal before. So therefore it's very reasonable to believe that certain details, such as the presence of coins, were either forgotten or not noticed at that time. If you're a policeman/doctor and you find a murder victim's corpse along with a couple of coins laying near them, which are you going to worry about the most?

WickerMan:

Not all farthings are smooth. I own a farthing dated 1952 which is grated around the outside. However, it IS an Australian coin, and obviously 1952 is quite a while after 1888. But yes, farthings with grated edges do exist.

There's actually a photo I took of it which will appear in a small piece called "Jack's Money" I mentioned I was working on before (it's going to be posted very shortly, everyone!) which you might like to take a look at.

Cheers,
Adam. :)

Tutto

11-01-2006, 01:44 PM

Hello everyone;

I've been searching into my short Ripper bibliography and I've found a third opinion in page 77 of "The JTR A to Z" :thumbsupbud: here it is:

"Contents of Annie Chapman pocket (which had been cut open) lying in a surprisingly neat or deliberate pile: a piece of coarse muslin, two combs, and almost certainly two farthings which may have been brightly polished"

So, perhaps (Tom & How) you should answer with another excerpt, mates, to maintain your idea of only one comb.:rolleyes:

Score right now; 2 combs: 2 (Sugden & A to Z) :p
1 comb : 1 (Ultimate JTR Sourcebook). :cry:

P.S. I was surprised about the possession of a tooth comb by Annie Chapman, but I've checked that Kate Eddowes did take other one with her when was killed, so...they were pretty neat women !!:clap:

Thank you all !!

Howard Brown

11-01-2006, 04:28 PM

Dear Inquisitador:

Perdone me senor...pero...

I got the reference straight out of the Ultimate,which reproduced the official Inquest transcription....

tel

11-01-2006, 04:28 PM

Yeah Adam, but the Aus farthings issued in the 1950's were not really circulation coins, rather a commemorative, and thus are not typical. I have a couple of them here as well.

Tom_Wescott

11-01-2006, 07:05 PM

Wickerman

11-01-2006, 10:29 PM

Assuming the prostitutes of Whitechapel were hardened professionals, they surely would have insisted on their 'fee' up front.
Why then was no money representing the 'fee' found on any of the victims?
The killer took it back, thats the reason for the pockets (pouches) of both Eddowes and Chapman being cut/torn open. He rifled the body to get his 'fee' back?
Would a 'toff' be bothered? - maybe the killer was poor?
Did he offer them something else that simply 'had' to be retrieved?

All speculation (above) aside, why was no fee ever found?

Tom_Wescott

11-01-2006, 10:32 PM

Wickerman,

Because he robbed them before he killed them. Buy the next issue of Ripper Notes to read all about it. :)
By the way, check out the Ripperologist #72 thread at the Casebook. We've been discussing the street light that you and I briefly talked about here. Looks like there WAS one almost (but not quite) across from the murder spot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Adam Went

11-02-2006, 03:57 AM

Hi everyone,

Tutto:

Aside from what Tom and How have already pointed out, one comb is the most logical solution anyway. Why on earth would Annie need to have two combs?
Unless she found it and decided to keep it....maybe she pinched it from Eliza Cooper as well as that soap. ;)

Tel:

Ah! Thanks for that. I wasn't aware that was a special edition farthing, so that solves that. In any case, those farthings were from the 1950's and our currency changed to dollars and cents pretty soon after that anyway, so it's not really a major mystery...I hope. :rolleyes:

Tom:

I agree that the coins would certainly have been noticed, but my point is that it's fair to say that neither the police nor the doctors would have ever seen a killing as brutal as Annie Chapman's before, so therefore their attention would probably be far more focused on the actual corpse rather than what was surrounding it at the time it was discovered. They're hardly going to say "Wow, there's a couple of coins neatly arranged just there...oh, and there's a horribly mutilated body!". That's why I think it may have been something that was only recalled later on and not really paid much attention to at that time. The police of 1888 didn't have the same crime scene investigation skills and know-how that the police of today do.

WickerMan:

You raise a very good point there about robbing the victims possibly meaning that the killer was poor and looking for belongings, particularly money.

Then again, it brings us back to the same old question...if Jack was a poor man, which would also probably mean he wasn't particularly well educated (OK, that might be a bit of a generalisation, but remember, this was the 19th century - we don't even know if he was literate) , how did he have the knowledge and skill to murder and mutilate his victims in the way he did? Who taught him? If he taught himself, how did he manage that?

Personally I tend to believe that Jack, while he wasn't rich, he certainly wasn't poor, and the taking of items from his victims was more one of those "trophy collecting" things we see from some serial killers. Just a thought. Or there could have been a message involved, as has been suggested before.

Cheers,
Adam.

ferret

11-02-2006, 04:40 AM

Hi all
Attatched a couple of pix of a 1918 farthing cleaned up a tad using HP sauce (which does make you wonder what it does to your insides!)
The rim is indeed smooth.
1681

1682
Cheers
Suzi:)

Wickerman

11-02-2006, 08:09 PM

Wickerman,

Because he robbed them before he killed them...

Oh right, of course, the victims all stood in silence while he rifled their draws..

....We've been discussing the street light that you and I briefly talked about here. Looks like there WAS one almost (but not quite) across from the murder spot.

Some witness testimony comes to mind that said..there was no streetlight in the vicinity but there was one at the end of the street?

Howard Brown

11-02-2006, 08:38 PM

Robbed them before he killed them?

Please explain.....

Tom_Wescott

11-02-2006, 09:21 PM

Oh right, of course, the victims all stood in silence while he rifled their draws..

Robbed them before he killed them? Please explain.....

Here? In public? Dan would kill me!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Magpie

11-03-2006, 02:11 AM

Tutto.
Are you sure you got that right?, all the farthings I had & still have are smooth around the circumference (edge). I don't recall ever seeing a half-sovereign but coins like the two-shilling piece & half-crown both had cerated edges (small lines etched around the circumference).
I have Cullen's book in English but can't remember where such a claim might be.

Jon

Hi guys.

Gold and silver coins were milled around the edges to prevent the common practice of "shaving" (removing some of the the metal from the edge). Since copper, bronze or brass coins had no intrinsic value (ie the metal itself wasn't worth much) there was no need to go to the trouble or added expense of milling the edges. So the rule of thumb is, the lower the value of a coin, the more likely it is to have a smooth edge.:)

Magpie

11-03-2006, 02:20 AM

Adam,

Believe me, the coins would have been noticed and would have been important. You have a dead prostitute killed in the city's poorest neighborhood. The killer, instead of taking the coins, chooses to arrange them at her feet. This would have been a vital clue and would have certainly been odd enough to generate much comment.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Agreed. Although I'm prepared to believe there were coins in the yard, I doubt very much that they were "arranged" in any meaningful way.

I had read that there were a couple of pennies scattered (not arranged) at the victim's feet, giving rise to the myth of the polish farthings in arcane arrangements.

I have also read that there were farthings found beneath the body when it was moved, which lead the coroner to bring up the story of the con-man using the polished farthing trick on prostitutes.

I think that it might yet be useful to find out when, how and why the story of the arranged coins entered into the lore--it might reflect an early belief concerning the murder or even reflect long-overlooked evidence that has been incorrectly dismissed.

Tutto

11-03-2006, 06:33 AM

Hi everyone;

How; as I´ve said before (please, check my last post); we have two references with two combs and only one (Ultimate...) with one comb; leaving farthings aside, of course.:thumbsupbud:

Adam;The second comb was a tooth comb (please, check my post n16); and Eddowes had hers too.:smoker:

Tom; Robbed them before he killed them? Tell us something more, please, please, please :o And there were two combs, pal ;-)

Magpie; Good to know about the coin´s edge rule...:clap:

See :eek: you later !!

Just Curious

11-03-2006, 12:42 PM

Magpie:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott
Adam,

Believe me, the coins would have been noticed and would have been important. You have a dead prostitute killed in the city's poorest neighborhood. The killer, instead of taking the coins, chooses to arrange them at her feet. This would have been a vital clue and would have certainly been odd enough to generate much comment.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Agreed. Although I'm prepared to believe there were coins in the yard, I doubt very much that they were "arranged" in any meaningful way.

I had read that there were a couple of pennies scattered (not arranged) at the victim's feet, giving rise to the myth of the polish farthings in arcane arrangements.

I have also read that there were farthings found beneath the body when it was moved, which lead the coroner to bring up the story of the con-man using the polished farthing trick on prostitutes.

I think that it might yet be useful to find out when, how and why the story of the arranged coins entered into the lore--it might reflect an early belief concerning the murder or even reflect long-overlooked evidence that has been incorrectly dismissed.

I found this information (as well as much more) >>>

http://casebook.org/press_reports/lloyds_weekly_news/18880930.html

Mr. Wynne Baxter resumed the adjourned inquest.........

After describing the finding of the body, he said as to the deed: "All was done with cool impudence and reckless daring; but, perhaps, nothing is more noticeable than the emptying of her pockets, and the arrangement of their contents with business-like precision in order near her feet. The murder seems, like the Buck's-row case, to have been carried out without any cry. Sixteen people were in the house. The partitions of the different rooms are of wood. The brute who committed the offence did not even take the trouble to cover up his ghastly work, but left the body exposed to the view of the first comer. This accords but little with the trouble taken with the rings, and suggests either that he had at length been disturbed, or that as the daylight broke a sudden fear suggested the danger of detection that he was running. There are two things missing. Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and have not been found, and the uterus has been taken away. The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some person who evidently had considerable
anatomical skill and knowledge.

http://casebook.org/press_reports/star/s880910.html

TELL-TALE BRUISES. ...........

In the pockets there were a handkerchief, two small combs, and an envelope with the seal of the Sussex Regiment. There were also found two farthings polished brightly, and, according to some, these coins had been passed off as half-sovereigns upon the deceased by her murderer.

Personally, I think Tom Westcott was right; there is too much information from the police/inquests testimony to dismiss the farthings, combs etc and the seemingly compulsive *arranging* of items. Even Mary Kellys clothes were folded!

A deed that I doubt very much that the lady would have done herself, given her poverty stricken circumstances, and the weather conditions at the time.
Believe me, in the Uk, if it's November, you have no heating and a broken window, you DON'T stand around stark nekkid folding your clothes!
:D

Tutto

11-03-2006, 04:04 PM

Hello everybody

I've made my homework :cool: searching Annie Chapman's comb(s) references in two more books :

Mr. Begg. The definitive history (page 192) :bowdown:
"He found a piece of coarse muslin, a small pocket hair comb, a screwed up piece of paper containing two pills and a portion of an envelope..."

Mr. Marriott-JTR The 21st century...-(from page 29 to 75 recovers the whole Chapman Inquest); in page 49: Dr. Phillips declares: :eek:
"I searched the yard and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small toothcomb, and a pocket comb, in a paper case, near the railing."

So, new Combs Score is:

One comb (Tom & How): 2 (Ultimate & Definitive)
Two Combs ( :rolleyes: ) : 3 (A to Z; Complete & Mr. Marriott).

Just Curious; I liked very much your findings at Casebook; though I think (let's say it now, mates) that the farthings weren't there, I agree with you about "seemingly compulsive *arranging* of items" :thumbsupbud:

The match is still on...

Wickerman

11-03-2006, 06:21 PM

Here? In public? Dan would kill me!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I readily admit the scenario Tom suggested to me off-line is believable for a particular class of killer.

Howard Brown

11-03-2006, 09:06 PM

Wick:

I do too....but I didn't have time to reply to Tom with a counter point this morning.

One possible "downside" to what Tom posits is how can we know if they had anything to rob in the first place?

In other words...its probably true that the money for the knee trembler was offered up front. Thats usually standard operating procedure,but not always. This possibility that a desparate and slightly trusting prostitute would accept the money afterwards does exist.

If the Ripper offered the only money they would have had at all,thats not really robbery but simply taking back the originally offered coins. We don't know if they ever found their way to the inside of the women's pockets. Robbery would mean that they already had money to rob.

....the Ripper might well have robbed one of them of a ring on one occasion for sure,but the money presented initially might have equally have been a lure,like bait if you will, to coerce them to take him to a secluded spot whereupon he reneged on the exchange of money and then murdered them.

Tom might feel differently but I suspect that the clenched fist scenario might have been more of a souvenir/trophy rather than what the typical "robbery" entails.

In any event,Tom's idea was a pretty good one.

Wickerman

11-03-2006, 10:08 PM

Wick:
One possible "downside" to what Tom posits is how can we know if they had anything to rob in the first place?

The down-side for me was this, or perhaps I need to read the full length version. I would ask, why threaten & rob someone you intend to kill?

This might be understandable if your victim cannot raise an alarm. As an example, you entice your victim to your house where you can torture & threaten her just for kicks before you kill her.
This clearly is not the case.

Approaching your victim in public and expecting her to stay quite while you brandish a knife is risky business, it also prolongs the encounter, an unreasonable risk.

Pimps did mistreat their tarts but they didn't murder & mutilate them, that would directly affect the bottom line, if you know what I mean. Bad for business.
So, if we accept organ removal, for whatever reason, was the intent, why go through the charade of a robbery where your victim can shout, scream or even kick you where it hurts?
Just rifle their draws when their dead.

The scenario proposed might fit any one of those East End gangs that were thought to have been responsible for Smith's attack in Osborn St.
I just don't think it goes with organ removal.

Howard Brown

11-03-2006, 10:36 PM

Wick:

I waited for you ( or someone ) to mention the "organ removal",believe it or not,because thats the real focus of the Ripper in my book. Its more of a consistency/trademark in the crimes than mere robbery.

Extraordinary risks were taken to extricate the organs outside in two murders and possibly two more on Berner Street and Bucks Row. The robbery as goal motive,which I am sure Tom did not intend to present as a primary motive, can't be a primary motive as these women hadn't the money to be indoors at those hours in the first place unless the Ripper was so distanced from the reality of the times that he felt these women were the easiest method of obtaining "quick cash" for his immediate needs.

Tom_Wescott

11-03-2006, 10:37 PM

So, if we accept organ removal, for whatever reason, was the intent, why go through the charade of a robbery where your victim can shout, scream or even kick you where it hurts?
Just rifle their draws when their dead.

A simple matter of both self-preservation and sadism. You attempt to rob a woman, order her not to scream, and she does, you run. If you happen to get caught, you're guilty of nothing more than attempted robbery. However, the odds of you being caught are slim. The average prostitute would be satisfied with your leaving and would not want to seek out a constable and spend her evening (work hours) at a police station filling out a statement. Now, if the woman DOESN'T scream, you know you have a compliant victim. You lure her to your nearby spot, rob them, tell them you're going to have sex with them, and then you strike. This method also allows you the pleasure of reveling in their fear, your power, that simply striking unawares would not allow.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom_Wescott

11-03-2006, 10:43 PM

Personally, I think Tom Westcott was right; there is too much information from the police/inquests testimony to dismiss the farthings, combs etc and the seemingly compulsive *arranging* of items. Even Mary Kellys clothes were folded!

JC,

As much as I enjoy being told I'm 'right', I don't remember having suggested any of the above. Coroner Baxter's summing up was merely a repetition of what he'd been told, so his comments about the 'business-like precision' do not represent independent witness testimony. As for Mary Kelly's clothes, she would have folded them herself and placed them on the chair before putting on her chemise. The Ripper, I believe, took off his own clothes and placed them atop Kelly's, following her lead, as one would do in such a situation. For this reason (out of sight, out of mind), her clothes did not make it into the fire. The fire, of course, is heat, so Kelly had plenty of it and being undressed would not be a problem.

Tutto,

Believe what you like, my friend. If you want two combs, you got it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Howard Brown

11-03-2006, 10:57 PM

A simple matter of both self-preservation and sadism. You attempt to rob a woman, order her not to scream, and she does, you run. If you happen to get caught, you're guilty of nothing more than attempted robbery.

Tom: One thing to remember here...had this "attempted robbery" suspect been nabbed,he would have been detained....hence no subsequent murders within the existing historical time frame as we have it after his apprehension.

However, the odds of you being caught are slim. The average prostitute would be satisfied with your leaving and would not want to seek out a constable and spend her evening (work hours) at a police station filling out a statement.

The prostitutes by the time of the Chapman murder ( in other words,after the gruesome Nichols and Tabram deaths ) would have just as likely told the constable on the beat,at least,of a man who had just threatened them with a blade. Not that it would have been "followed through',but at least a 50/50 chance of this being reported. Prostitution is usually accepted and often supported by indifference, if confined within a specific area,whether in 1888 London. or 2006 Philadelphia or Tulsa.

Now, if the woman DOESN'T scream, you know you have a compliant victim. You lure her to your nearby spot, rob them, tell them you're going to have sex with them, and then you strike. This method also allows you the pleasure of reveling in their fear, your power, that simply striking unawares would not allow.

This paragraph infers that the client did the luring and not the street wise prostitute. Again,its a 50/50 chance SHE did the directing if not more.....

In case you aren't aware from experience:rolleyes: , prostitutes almost always do the directing to "safe spots" and thats the way its been since Day One.

Regardless of my counterpoints,I am,I hope, just one person who looks forward to your article on this scenario.

Howard Brown

11-03-2006, 11:15 PM

Tom:

Before ( if you intended to ) you reply to the previous posts I made....just remember that prostitution was a means to an end....and none of the specific Ripper victims were "full time" 24/7 prostitutes. It was when they were essentially depleted of cash that they walked the walk. Had any of them had the cash one assumes they may have had,they would have been safely sleeping in a doss house or at home. Eddowes,being an exception, walked one too many times to get money to get her man's shoes out of hock.

Tom_Wescott

11-03-2006, 11:18 PM

Tom: One thing to remember here...had this "attempted robbery" suspect been nabbed,he would have been detained....hence no subsequent murders within the existing historical time frame as we have it after his apprehension.

Yes, if he had been nabbed. Or perhaps he got himself out of it? Perhaps this is why only Stride's throat was cut. Blood on a blade is an easy matter to dispose of, as opposed to bloody hands and organs on your person. He expected to be stopped following each murder and planned for it. I'd say that much is obvious and supported by the evidence.

The prostitutes by the time of the Chapman murder ( in other words,after the gruesome Nichols and Tabram deaths ) would have just as likely told the constable on the beat,at least,of a man who had just threatened them with a blade. Not that it would have been "followed through',but at least a 50/50 chance of this being reported. Prostitution is usually accepted and often supported by indifference, if confined within a specific area,whether in 1888 London. or 2006 Philadelphia or Tulsa.

Yes, if the man looked like the reported 'Leather Apron', or a gang of ruffians, which is what all the victims prior to Kelly were fed by the press as the man to look out for. Then maybe, but only maybe. If you believe Israel Schwartz, and what you wrote is categorically true, then Stride would have left Berner Street in search of a constable the moment her attacker split. But she didn't. James Sadler would have gone to the police when he was attacked and robbed. But he didn't. Emma Smith would have been screaming for the police when she had a blunt object shoved up inside her. But she didn't, ad infinitum.

This paragraph infers that the client did the luring and not the street wise prostitute. Again,its a 50/50 chance SHE did the directing if not more...In case you aren't aware from experience:rolleyes: , prostitutes almost always do the directing to "safe spots" and thats the way its been since Day One.

I'm not aware from experience, but Gary Ridgway is. He killed 49 prostitutes and I don't believe a one of the girls picked her own final destination. It's a simple matter of moving on to the next if the first is a no-go. And there's nothing suspicious about that. And the women of the East End were on the streets for one thing - money. Common sense, and the fact he got away with it repeatedly and under extreme circumstances, suggests the Ripper left as little as possible to chance. Like other serial killers, he needed a spot he felt safe in. And perhaps he was a regular among the prostitutes, and actually discovered his locations from previous, non-fatal visits, with other prostitutes. But when he picked a spot he became familiar with it, and with the activities in and around it at a certain time. So, maybe he DID allow prostitutes to pick the spot, but not the ones he murdered.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Howard Brown

11-03-2006, 11:21 PM

Tom:

Using Ridgeway is unacceptable,isn't it? He, after all ,had the means of transportation and was behind the wheel?

We're talking about walking clients and prosses.

Why would it matter WHAT a man with a knife looked like if a woman was attacked?
******************************

Like other serial killers, he needed a spot he felt safe in. And perhaps he was a regular among the prostitutes, and actually discovered his locations from previous, non-fatal visits, with other prostitutes. But when he picked a spot he became familiar with it, and with the activities in and around it at a certain time. So, maybe he DID allow prostitutes to pick the spot, but not the ones he murdered.

Tom.....the emboldened semi-sentence implies some sort of knowledge none of us are imbued with. We don't know if the client selected the spots and in fact,its more likely that street wise women choose their spots and call the shots.

Tom_Wescott

11-03-2006, 11:21 PM

Tom_Wescott

11-03-2006, 11:23 PM

Tom:

Using Ridgeway is unacceptable,isn't it? He, after all ,had the means of transportation and was behind the wheel?

We're talking about walking clients and prosses.

And the cops had cars, too, and better lights. Different time, different tools, same game and mindset. Many, if not most, of the girls he murdered operated off the strip and had ready rooms nearby for the purpose of returning with clients. Other motels yards from them were pay by the hour. But the women he murdered did not insist on these. Why? Because Ridgway seemed harmless enough.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Howard Brown

11-03-2006, 11:28 PM

Tom:

Using contemporary cases from our or the last century are really not applicable unless they are examples of pedestrian cases related to prior century's pedestrian cases. Mobilization in the 20th century revamped the parameters of serial murder where different capabilities were realized.

Tom_Wescott

11-03-2006, 11:40 PM

I understand what you're saying, but you're missing my point. You yourself earlier compared prostitutes of the East End with prostitutes of today, suggesting nothing had changed as far as their practices and preferences. I'm saying you're right. I'm saying the same is true of a man who steps out his door with murder on his mind, whether the year is 1888, 1988, or 2006. He wants to get away with it. He wants control. He will want to pick the spot he commits the crime. Some prostitutes will refuse, others will not. To suggest every prostitute would behave the same in a situations is not only naive, it flies in the face of history.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Howard Brown

11-03-2006, 11:49 PM

Tom:

Of course,I understand what you are implying or referring to !

Its basically whether these women HAD something to steal other than the ring on Mrs.Chapman that I originally countered.

In any event,serial killers are almost invariably not like they were in 1888 in virtually every way shape or form, unless they are like Dahmer types.. The automobile decided that.

Most times,as I am sure you understand,a client is advised to the location.

In the case of the known victims in our scenario,the odds are that they chose the spot,knowing the beat times.

Back to you....

Tom_Wescott

11-03-2006, 11:52 PM

But look at where the victims lived or 'worked' and where they ended up. Chapman, Stride, Eddowes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Howard Brown

11-03-2006, 11:54 PM

Tommy:

I gotta split because I have to work tomorrow....but I'll be back 'cause this last post is pretty intriguing.

More tomorrow homes.

Magpie

11-04-2006, 12:02 AM

There have been incidences in the past where a killer, intending to kill his victims, lead them to believe that his motive was robbery, and that if they co-operated and did not cause a fuss they would survive the encounter.

It's not unusual in a robbery situation for the victim to believe that they are still in control of the situation and can dictate the outcome providing they do the "right thing". This gives the advantage to the killer in that the victim is predictable and controllable. This could be especially true for prostitutes who are street-wise and "know the score". It might even be a relief ("oh good, it's 'just' a robbery")

Although it sounds like a oxymoron, it's possibly that the Ripper "robbed" his victims in order to reassure them.

Tom_Wescott

11-04-2006, 12:40 AM

That's precisely the point I've been trying NOT to make in public yet. Ha ha. But I like the way you put that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Magpie

11-04-2006, 12:44 AM

Oops.

Sorry Tom :banghead:

Tom_Wescott

11-04-2006, 01:21 AM

Oops.

Sorry Tom :banghead:

Ha ha. Magpie, you're so nice, you crack me up. And there's nothing to apologize for. I feel the exchange on this thread has been valuable to my work. In order to be considered valid, any theory must stand up to challenges and counter-points. It must also be rational and fit with the known evidence. The theory for the Ripper's approach, which I'll explain in detail in the next issue of Ripper Notes, is the only one to fit this criteria, I believe.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Magpie

11-04-2006, 01:29 AM

I look forward to reading that:)

To offer a couple of real-life examples for what I suggest, Charles Manson used such a technique with both the Labiancas and Gary Hinman, where they allowed themselves to be tied up and rendered helpless in the belief that they were being robbed and stood a chance of surviving if they played along--however as we now know Manson had no intention of letting them live at all, and left them for his drones to finish off.

Howard Brown

11-04-2006, 05:31 AM

Magpie:

Tom's right...you is a nice guy.:)

And thats a very good example with Manson ( many other killers have no doubt used that technique of feigning a robbery for another purpose far worse ). But,I think you'll agree,almost always staged indoors or in a car.

Its true ( in my opinion ) that the Ripper may have come on nice to the ladies and then commandeered them to a darker,more secluded spot in the general area of the initial contact. Then,as premised, what Tom posits could have happened.

Tom:

As to the question of Chapman,Stride,and Eddowes....

If I had to guess,I'd think Chapman was aware of the yard on Hanbury and that it had been used for those purposes. I'd say she led the way. Just an unproven hunch.:)

In Stride's case,she's already there. This one might be 50/50.

In Eddowes circumstance, Chick takes a definite "wrong turn" into the area around Mitre Square after being let out of jail.. She undoubtedly knows its a haven for client/pross activity. This one might have been commandeered by the Ripper. Spry found that newspaper account which her man at the time Kelly says clearly that he was worried she would resort to prossing due to their abject poverty....and yet denies such activity elsewhere publicly. She was almost certainly turning one last trick that night.

Magpie

11-04-2006, 06:09 AM

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever suggested that Eddowes' final destination was perhaps not merely Mitre Sq, but somewhere even more private in Mitre Sq. Like say one of the abandoned houses, or more specifically the yard on the other side of the gate where she was killed? Maybe she led him to the gate, but then for some reason balked at leaving the light of the Square to enter the shadow of the yard (or the gate was locked and they were prevented from entering).

I think it's interesting that Eddowes and Nichols were killed adjacent to a gate leading to an even more secluded area than the one where they died (shades of Stride).

Magpie

11-04-2006, 06:13 AM

Magpie:

Tom's right...you is a nice guy.:)

Wow, you and Tom are making me blush here.

Much more of this and I'm not going to be able to fit my head in the elevator :o

Robert Linford

11-04-2006, 06:21 AM

Hi Nice Guy

I do remember being told (maybe by Monty) that both the Mitre Sq gate and the Buck's Row gate were locked. Perhaps both women led Jack to these gates, and on finding them locked, Jack made a quick decision and killed them where they stood. It does seem a bit of a coincidence, though, if two streetwise prostitutes made mistakes over gates in this way.

Robert

Magpie

11-04-2006, 06:32 AM

Perhaps both women led Jack to these gates, and on finding them locked, Jack made a quick decision and killed them where they stood.
Robert

Yes, that's what I meant. Tom raised that possibility about Buck's Row a couple of weeks ago and it seems plausible enough

It does seem a bit of a coincidence, though, if two streetwise prostitutes made mistakes over gates in this way.

Yes and no. It could be that they had passed the gates previously and they were open, or they had been able to use those sites in the past. I dont' know if it's necessarily important, but I do find it intriguing that 3 murders took place in such similar locales.

Of course maybe all three victims were heading for the percieved shelter or safety of those gates and Jack caught up with them (in 2 of the cases) because the gates turned out to be locked...

Tutto

11-04-2006, 06:50 AM

Hello everyone;

Last posts show to me very interestings points :bowdown: ; I agree with Tom (yes, Magpie is sure a nice guy...but I was thinking about robbery previous to murder:rolleyes: ) this could be an interesting MO, because the woman had "something to deal with" ; if she had thought from the begining the man was going to kill her, the struggle was sure.

Probably, these women were accostumated (say so? )to be robbed & raped (shades of Emma Smith) so it should be a controlled circumstance for them and easier for Jack to kill them at the end.:offinhead:

I'll try to read the whole article, of course, Tom and...please, asking for your kindness again, explain me why if you are right (...and sure you are !!) there are two combs recovered in these three books (Sugden, A to Z and Trevor Marriott) ? For instance, in last one, the whole Chapman's Inquest is given; questions & answers...where do you think the mistake was ? :banghead:

The places tour is promising, if gates were opened kill them into and if they were closed..."it's now or never":smoker:

Thank you all, and apologize again for my "peculiar" English...

Magpie

11-04-2006, 07:13 AM

Hi Tutto.

One source of the discrepancy is that we only have newspaper accounts of the inquest testimony, and different newspapers may have had variations in the testimony.

For instance, the Daily Telegraph had Ins Chandler's testimony as:

"After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman. A portion of an envelope was found near her head, which contained two pills. "

Doctor Phillips seems to concur:

" I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there. I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police. "

It's interesting that both of them claim to have searched the yard, finding the same things.

The East London Advertiser, however, gives a similar description of Chandler's discoveries, while not attributing any such discoveries to Phillips at all.

Just Curious

11-04-2006, 09:42 AM

JC,

As much as I enjoy being told I'm 'right', I don't remember having suggested any of the above. Coroner Baxter's summing up was merely a repetition of what he'd been told, so his comments about the 'business-like precision' do not represent independent witness testimony.
Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Ok, point taken and apology offered. I did not intend to infer you suggested anything .... I'm signing myself into an English Lit. and punctuation course! ;)

Umm, I'm still not with you about Mary folding her clothes. That just does not sit with me at all.

She was penniless yes? Where did she get the means to have a fire? When you are penniless, food comes above all, even a fire.

She lived in a squalid room in a slum area, she walked the streets and probably had a bath every 5th month ........ yet she folds her clothes? I could give credit to the idea that she flung them over the back of the chair, or maybe the end of the bed ... but fold? ........ Uhuh.

I can go with the idea that Jack lit the fire after the deed .... the hat would have helped .. but I doubt if Mary would have sat round watching him burn that while she was alive.

Even if a fire was lit before Jack entered .. it would have had to be a good fire, burning for quite some time to counteract the cold of an British November and a broken window.

Ok, it's the same time of year, early November, Britain; I live in a small village, in a house with double glazing, loft insulation, damp course, central heating, carpets, curtains etc .... last night, all the village had an electric power out. Within 30 minutes my house was starting to get really cold. After 2 hours, I turned into bed because I felt absolutely freezing ...... and I sure didn't hang around to fold my clothes. :D

I'm not cosseted because I have modern conveniences ... I was brought up in a home with only one main fire and no heating anywhere else. I've lived in remote areas of Scotland with ice on the inside of the windows 6 inches thick some winters; so cold we wore coats and boots to go to the bathroom.

So, from my own experience, throw and dash yes, fold, no.

Tutto

11-04-2006, 09:43 AM

Thank you, Magpie, I think this is the clue, if we could be able to choose one of the newspaper accounts of the inquest testimony, as best (most reliable) then we will agree easily about the items, farthings, etc. :thumbsupbud:

I have to search with was newspaper accounts of the inquest testimony used by Mr. Trevor Marriott in his book...:offinhead:

Wickerman

11-04-2006, 09:47 AM

In case you aren't aware from experience:rolleyes: , prostitutes almost always do the directing to "safe spots" and thats the way its been since Day One.

Is there a confessional in the making here? ;)

Anyway, we know the press of the time portrayed the killer as a stalker of women, one who led them to their doom, etc. Perhaps this is why researchers today see the killer in that light.

Just as an example of the CID's perspective, here's Inspector Henry Moore, he was the one Dew described as, "a huge figure of a man, as strong minded as he powerful physically. He had much experience behind him, and was in every way a thoroughly reliable and painstaking officer".
Macnaghten said of him, "one of the smartest officers I ever had the honour of being associated with".
Inspector Moore was working in the Ripper squad directly under Abberline.

Moore commented on Jack the Ripper, "what makes it so easy for him is that the women lead him of their own free will to the spot where they know interruption is least likely. It is not as if he had to wait for his chance; they made the chance for him..."
The Lodger, Evans & Gainey, 1995, p.39

The police perspective was from experience, from knowing the people and their habits.

Howard Brown

11-04-2006, 11:44 AM

Wick:

I ain't sayin' nuttin'..:rolleyes:

Tom_Wescott

11-04-2006, 12:45 PM

explain me why if you are right (...and sure you are !!) there are two combs recovered in these three books (Sugden, A to Z and Trevor Marriott) ? .

That's simple. Sugden's book came first. The other two copied. Marriott's book contains no original thought or research until the last chapter, which would have made a good article for a Ripper journal, but failed as a premise for a full-length book. The last edition of A-Z was published in 1996 is overflowing with errors, minor and otherwise, which is why the authors are now hard at work on an up-to-date, authoritative version, for which I, for one, cannot wait.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott