Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C-5: Killed While Soliciting or Not?

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

  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    very drunk and maybe that alone argues against my idea.

    Would there have been a reason that Kate wanted to be locked up for part of the night? To escape from someone? To rest until she had to meet someone? To establish an alibi?
    Hi Anna

    Thats a good point but it is mitogated to some extent by the fact that teh record as it stands showed she asked to be let out and then asked what time it was.

    If she was hiding from someone or something or establishing an alibi....then it would be more logical for her to ask what time it was first then ask to be let out.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    That’s interesting, Mr P. What was the price of gin vs rum in 1888?
    No idea Gary. Best I know was gin, the tipple of choice apparently for unfortunates, was 4d a glass.

    How posted a link to a list of what Things cost recently but I cannot Access it so you could check that.

    p

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    Here is just a weird, stray thought but others have tried to make all kinds of sinister connections between Kate and the spot where she was picked up by police. I think, like Mr. P. is pointing out, she must have been very drunk and maybe that alone argues against my idea.

    Would there have been a reason that Kate wanted to be locked up for part of the night? To escape from someone? To rest until she had to meet someone? To establish an alibi?

    Then a question: I don´t have source material at hand but as I recall it has always been kind of a mystery how/where Kate obtained so much drink. No one came forward to say she had been in a certain pub, etc.? Is this issue a mystery to consider?

    (I always had the idea she had gotten drunk privately, in a home or with a person in a private place. I thought for a long time JtR had gotten her drunk but she got too drunk to bend to his purposes, she got locked up but she went to meet him, or ran into him later. That was back when I thought JtR was a mysterious phantom with a master plan. Now I lean toward Jack being a mentally disturbed East Ender who wandered the streets at night.)
    Not if she was so drunk that she was incapable of rational thought. In that scenario, her reappearance in Aldgate was a complete coincidence.

    And her giving a false name and address was because she couldn’t remember her own, rather than an attempt to disguise the fact that she didn’t have one. The choice of Fashion Street - her sister’s address - was another coincidence.

    She was probably so drunk that she didn’t realise that singing in her cell, asking to be let out and insisting she was sober would lead to her being turned out of her safe, dry and relatively comfortable cell onto the hazardous streets of Whitechapel. She’d probably forgotten there was a murderer on the loose, and forgotten that Spitalfields was her home turf.

    And when she told her gaoler that she was fearful of getting a good hiding when she got home, that was just drunken babbling, she probably couldn’t remember that she even had an old man.

    At least that’s one way of looking at it. ��

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Here is just a weird, stray thought but others have tried to make all kinds of sinister connections between Kate and the spot where she was picked up by police. I think, like Mr. P. is pointing out, she must have been very drunk and maybe that alone argues against my idea.

    Would there have been a reason that Kate wanted to be locked up for part of the night? To escape from someone? To rest until she had to meet someone? To establish an alibi?

    Then a question: I don´t have source material at hand but as I recall it has always been kind of a mystery how/where Kate obtained so much drink. No one came forward to say she had been in a certain pub, etc.? Is this issue a mystery to consider?

    (I always had the idea she had gotten drunk privately, in a home or with a person in a private place. I thought for a long time JtR had gotten her drunk but she got too drunk to bend to his purposes, she got locked up but she went to meet him, or ran into him later. That was back when I thought JtR was a mysterious phantom with a master plan. Now I lean toward Jack being a mentally disturbed East Ender who wandered the streets at night.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    Hi Anna

    I appreciate your point. What goes against the notion that she'd had but a liitle....irrespective of how drunk she was on that.... Was that policemen commented on her smelling strongly of drink.

    Assuming they were well used to the smell of the denizens of the area....there must have been a fair old stink off her.

    Which to my mind indicates her having drunk more than a tot or rum for example.

    Given that gin was filthy cheap and served in larger measures than modern minds are used too.......her condition and the noticeable reek of alchohol off her indicate that she had had a few or a very large one and was left unable to walk, talk or stand unaided.

    By any measure of it.....thats being full on pissed.

    P
    That’s interesting, Mr P. What was the price of gin vs rum in 1888?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Hi Anna

    I appreciate your point. What goes against the notion that she'd had but a liitle....irrespective of how drunk she was on that.... Was that policemen commented on her smelling strongly of drink.

    Assuming they were well used to the smell of the denizens of the area....there must have been a fair old stink off her.

    Which to my mind indicates her having drunk more than a tot or rum for example.

    Given that gin was filthy cheap and served in larger measures than modern minds are used too.......her condition and the noticeable reek of alchohol off her indicate that she had had a few or a very large one and was left unable to walk, talk or stand unaided.

    By any measure of it.....thats being full on pissed.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • String
    replied
    I would guess these ladies were alcoholics. No certainty but a guess. My brother in law was one and all it took for him to become drunk or practically drunk was a few drinks. You would think they built up a tolerance to it but not in his case. We reckoned that the fresh alcohol reinvigorated the previous lot. That maybe wrong but that’s the way it seemed to work with him.
    It could also be his liver was kaput and less alcohol was necessary.
    Either way a few drinks may have been all that was required to make them drunk.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    For what it´s worth=> Alcohol affects women different than men. A similar discussion happened somewhere here or at CB and someone suggested Kate was what we could call a ¨cheap drunk¨ meaning very little alcohol may have made her very drunk. (The reasoning on this was, she probably did not have much money, could not have bought much drink, was unlikely to have had a companion buy her a large amount of drink, etc.)

    I think, judging by the mortuary photos and some measurements, Kate was tiny and did not weigh much. Small women supposedly suffer the effects of alcohol to a greater extent.

    Acquaintances noted the breakfast Kate shared with John was very substantial for them so I take it that neither one of them was well nourished. Perhaps that breakfast was the last meal Kate had that day so alcohol in the evening would have had a stronger effect without food also being taken.

    Alcohol can also lead to rebound hypoglycemia under some conditions and hypoglycemia can look like or exaggerate intoxication. 1888 was long before medicine of today labelled everyone over 40 a diabetic or pre-diabetic. However there is a tendency for blood glucose to be less properly regulated beginning in middle age and as I remember, Kate was around age 42.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    Right here Gary.....


    Your logical conclusion was that she was faking how drunk she was going into the police station.



    As I pointed out and which I feel you actually understand but cannot admit to..... walking out of jail and engaging in small talk (perhaps forgetting her own name!) does not mean, especially when you have been unable to stand not four hours previously......does not mean you are capable of making rational or logical decisions.

    Therefore...its illogical to try and draw conclusions, based on logical and rational analysis, as to her actions post-release as there is no reason to conclude she was making rational and logical decisions due to being alchohol impaired.



    Indeed. And often I have made the entirely irrational decision that I could, for example, safely drive, or that my dissheveled appearance was suitable for work, or that I didnt stink of drink.

    Or that I wouldnt bother doing x,y, or x because I just couldnt be arsed.

    Again...biology and inquest evidence is against you.

    if you are so drunk you cannot stand ...then four hours later you are still alchohol impaired and your decision making capacity is reduced.

    Therefore..... trying to infer anything about where she was going or what she ws up to is pointless.

    Because she would still have been alchohol impaired to teh extent that her decision making capacity was reduced.

    Dont take my word for it...have some governmental health advice instead:



    And there is no way that four hours after being unable to stand upright or walk that she was anywhere near 0.08%.

    P
    A BAC of .05 - .08 g% is likely to make you at risk of impaired judgment and reduced inhibitions

    Just like an unshaven employee stinking of drink dragging his sorry butt into work to avoid a bollocking or the sack, or a woman wandering back to Aldgate to earn a few coppers to avoid a ‘hiding’ from her old man.

    Or do you think it’s a coincidence that Kate turned up back in Aldgate? That in her drunken state she just put one foot in front of the other and lo and behold...

    I’m still waiting for evidence that I said Kate was sober when she was released.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    They don't make pilots like they used to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    When did I claim she was sober on release?
    Right here Gary.....
    If, as you suggest, such a recovery is impossible, the only logical conclusion is that she was faking how drunk she was when was arrested.
    Your logical conclusion was that she was faking how drunk she was going into the police station.

    Of course there was still alcohol in her system, but not enough to prevent her from getting herself out of gaol, thinking up a false name and address, indulging in banter and making her way back to Aldgate. A very different case from the ‘nothing’ who was carried into her cell a few hours earlier.
    As I pointed out and which I feel you actually understand but cannot admit to..... walking out of jail and engaging in small talk (perhaps forgetting her own name!) does not mean, especially when you have been unable to stand not four hours previously......does not mean you are capable of making rational or logical decisions.

    Therefore...its illogical to try and draw conclusions, based on logical and rational analysis, as to her actions post-release as there is no reason to conclude she was making rational and logical decisions due to being alchohol impaired.

    Have you never had a skinful, collapsed into bed in the early hours and then 4/5 hours later reluctantly, painfully dragged yourself out of bed and somehow managed to get yourself to work? I have, on more occasions than I care to remember. Not for years, though.
    Indeed. And often I have made the entirely irrational decision that I could, for example, safely drive, or that my dissheveled appearance was suitable for work, or that I didnt stink of drink.

    Or that I wouldnt bother doing x,y, or x because I just couldnt be arsed.

    Again...biology and inquest evidence is against you.

    if you are so drunk you cannot stand ...then four hours later you are still alchohol impaired and your decision making capacity is reduced.

    Therefore..... trying to infer anything about where she was going or what she ws up to is pointless.

    Because she would still have been alchohol impaired to teh extent that her decision making capacity was reduced.

    Dont take my word for it...have some governmental health advice instead:

    A BAC of .05 - .08 g% is likely to make you at risk of impaired judgment and reduced inhibitions.
    And there is no way that four hours after being unable to stand upright or walk that she was anywhere near 0.08%.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    Im afraid the evidence is against you Gary.

    1 glass of gin (a glass, not a modern shot) will get a 70 kg woman to 0.3% BAC. Such a glass cost what.....4 pence?

    The police, under oath, declared she was rotten drunk. They said she stank of drink. Two of them had to drag her into the police station. She couldnt stand up. She couldnt lean against a wall. She couldnt or wouldnt talk. It took them 45 minutes to get her to the police station. The police presumably knew what a drunk woman acted and stank like.

    yet barely four hours later she is on her way. Biological fact indicates whe would still have been technically drunk.

    It was the inspector on duty who decided if Kate was sober. There is no testimony from him that I am aware of that indicates he actually ever saw her.

    It most probable that she was let out while still being alchohol impaired.

    If you can up with a scenario whereby:

    1. she was only pretending to be drunk

    2. the police were stupid enough not to recognise that she was pretending

    3. she stank of drink without having been drinking

    4. a biological process occurred, specific to Kate Eddowes, wherby her liver managed to work its way through an alchohol amount that normally would take nearly 8 hours to get to below 0.08%.....

    ...then its only logical to conclude that she was not fully sober when leaving and accept the implications that has for her subsequent actions.

    There is no logical purpose in devising a scenario whereby she was sober on leaving other than to pander to odd theories and the like when the explanation is as simple, and as well supported by the evidence, as her being still fairly puggled at 01:00 am.

    P
    Mr P,

    When did I claim she was sober on release?

    Of course there was still alcohol in her system, but not enough to prevent her from getting herself out of gaol, thinking up a false name and address, indulging in banter and making her way back to Aldgate. A very different case from the ‘nothing’ who was carried into her cell a few hours earlier.

    Have you never had a skinful, collapsed into bed in the early hours and then 4/5 hours later reluctantly, painfully, dragged yourself out of bed and somehow managed to get yourself to work? I have, on more occasions than I care to remember. Not for years, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    Mr P,

    You are arguing that when she left she was so drunk she was incapable of rational thought.

    Her actions and those of her gaolers suggest otherwise.
    Nope.

    Im arguing that she was alchohol impaired on leaving to an extent, going by biological certainties regarding alchohol effects and metabolism, that her decision making processes would most likely impaired.

    You dont have to be comatose shitfaced to think you can safely drive after a few drinks. Or sing. Or chat up the girl at the end of the bar. Or think that grabbing the policemans hat is funny. Or that the bouncer will appreciate your humour. Or that you absolutely must have the second kebab. Or that you can handle another pint

    Its called being impaired with respect to your decision making.

    And it means your decisions are not always what one would predict to be good sense.

    Which means trying to apply logic to Kates selection of one route or another is pointless in teh Extreme.

    OP

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    Im afraid the evidence is against you Gary.

    1 glass of gin (a glass, not a modern shot) will get a 70 kg woman to 0.3% BAC. Such a glass cost what.....4 pence?

    The police, under oath, declared she was rotten drunk. They said she stank of drink. Two of them had to drag her into the police station. She couldnt stand up. She couldnt lean against a wall. She couldnt or wouldnt talk. It took them 45 minutes to get her to the police station. The police presumably knew what a drunk woman acted and stank like.

    yet barely four hours later she is on her way. Biological fact indicates whe would still have been technically drunk.

    It was the inspector on duty who decided if Kate was sober. There is no testimony from him that I am aware of that indicates he actually ever saw her.

    It most probable that she was let out while still being alchohol impaired.

    If you can up with a scenario whereby:

    1. she was only pretending to be drunk

    2. the police were stupid enough not to recognise that she was pretending

    3. she stank of drink without having been drinking

    4. a biological process occurred, specific to Kate Eddowes, wherby her liver managed to work its way through an alchohol amount that normally would take nearly 8 hours to get to below 0.08%.....

    ...then its only logical to conclude that she was not fully sober when leaving and accept the implications that has for her subsequent actions.

    There is no logical purpose in devising a scenario whereby she was sober on leaving other than to pander to odd theories and the like when the explanation is as simple, and as well supported by the evidence, as her being still fairly puggled at 01:00 am.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    4 short lines with no indication of diction or slurring is hardly a conversation!

    Why would she fake being drunk and lying on damp pavement? To what objective?

    Unless she wanted to go to the cells ..which is unlikely as she wanted to get out again a short while later.

    There is no logical reason for her to be faking being drunk.

    In additon ...she stank of drink as she was carried by two policemen into the police station. Admittedly, women of her sort possibly stank of drink all the time but the stink was strong enough for the policemen to note it.

    From her inquest (copper as witness) Coroner - You are quite sure this woman was drunk? - She smelt very strongly of drink.

    And there is every reason to doubt that she was sober when leaving.

    P
    Mr P,

    You are arguing that when she left she was so drunk she was incapable of rational thought.

    Her actions and those of her gaolers suggest otherwise.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X