C-5: Killed While Soliciting or Not?

[Gary Barnett]

Kate still bothers me because of her fairly stable set up with Kelly.

But for some reason she made an effort to be released from her cell. Bearing in mind that JTR was apparently the talk of the hop fields, why would she be so keen to leave the safety and relative comfort of her cell, and why did she head back to the place where she had previously been arrested rather than to her home turf of Spitalfields? If she’d kept quiet and pretended to be asleep, she might not have been turned out until daylight.

Her comment about getting a ‘good hiding’ when she got home is a curious one. She had no home to go to, but perhaps admitting that might have hampered her release. As for getting a good hiding, given how hard up she and Kelly were and that he had at some point to pawn his boots, I doubt he was best pleased when he heard that she had managed to secure some money and had promptly spent it on drink.

Perhaps she was fearful of an encounter with Kelly before she had money with which to placate him and was wary of trying to earn that money where she was known.

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps she was fearful of an encounter with Kelly before she had money with which to placate him and was wary of trying to earn that money where she was known.

An ingenious suggestion, and eminently plausible.

[Gary Barnett]

I hope it’s OK to add Alice into the mix here.

She seems to have been in a fairly stable relationship with John McCormack, but such was her desire for drink that she scarpered to the pub with the rent money. What kind of a reception could she have expected when next they met?

(One of the early reports said that Alice appeared to be of the ‘unfortunate class’ because of the way she dressed.)

I think HR may have missed a trick by not considering that Kate may have been forced into prostitution to avoid a beating from her man. And ditto, Alice, if she’d made it onto the list.

[Mr. Poster]

At 8:00 pm she is plastered drunk. Cannot stand up. Lying in the gutter. Cannot stay erect even when leaning against the wall. Cannot walk unaided.

By any scale that indicates a blood alchohol level of 0.15% up to 0.3% or therabouts. Thats something like a half pint of whiskey coursing through her veins at the lower end of teh concentration.

By a little after midnight she is sober enough to be on her way. With a metabolic rate in relation to alchol of 0.016% per hour (give or take based on gender etc.) ..that means by midnight she was somewhere between (0.15-0.064) and (0.3-0.064) which is a range between 0.086 and 0.236%.

At the lower level of that range she is, by any standards, alchohol impaired. ie. still drunk. Given that she was a seasoned drinker, maybe she could handle it better. Given that her organs were probably wrecked, her blood Levels may not have gone down as quick and she didnt sober up as qucik.

Either way..... if you cannot stand up or walk at 8 o'clock, the idea that she was sober by midnight is preposterous.

Therefore assuming she was making rational or sober decisions as to where she was heading off to on release is most probably a mistake.

How drunk she was on release is impossible to judge as 1) it appears it was her own assessment as to sobriety that got her out and no-one ever thinks they are drunk, and 2) the policeman would never say she was drunk when he released her as he may have gotten into trouble for that.

But by any estimate...you dont og from fall down drunk to rational clear headedness in 4 hours flat.

In addition, her still being drunk when meeting her killer accords exactly with the other victims who, except for Stride, were impaired by sickness or drink. Theyre being impaired is one common theme in all the killings, except for Stride.

P

[Gary Barnett]

At 8:00 pm she is plastered drunk. Cannot stand up. Lying in the gutter. Cannot stay erect even when leaning against the wall. Cannot walk unaided.

By any scale that indicates a blood alchohol level of 0.15% up to 0.3% or therabouts. Thats something like a half pint of whiskey coursing through her veins at the lower end of teh concentration.

By a little after midnight she is sober enough to be on her way. With a metabolic rate in relation to alchol of 0.016% per hour (give or take based on gender etc.) ..that means by midnight she was somewhere between (0.15-0.064) and (0.3-0.064) which is a range between 0.086 and 0.236%.

At the lower level of that range she is, by any standards, alchohol impaired. ie. still drunk. Given that she was a seasoned drinker, maybe she could handle it better. Given that her organs were probably wrecked, her blood Levels may not have gone down as quick and she didnt sober up as qucik.

Either way..... if you cannot stand up or walk at 8 o'clock, the idea that she was sober by midnight is preposterous.

Therefore assuming she was making rational or sober decisions as to where she was heading off to on release is most probably a mistake.

How drunk she was on release is impossible to judge as 1) it appears it was her own assessment as to sobriety that got her out and no-one ever thinks they are drunk, and 2) the policeman would never say she was drunk when he released her as he may have gotten into trouble for that.

But by any estimate...you dont og from fall down drunk to rational clear headedness in 4 hours flat.

In addition, her still being drunk when meeting her killer accords exactly with the other victims who, except for Stride, were impaired by sickness or drink. Theyre being impaired is one common theme in all the killings, except for Stride.

P

She managed to engage in conversation with the custody officer and convince him that she was sober, come up with a false name and address, and find her way back to Aldgate. That’s very different from the legless ‘nothing’ who was arrested.

[Gary Barnett]

She managed to engage in conversation with the custody officer and convince him that she was sober, come up with a false name and address, and find her way back to Aldgate. That’s very different from the legless ‘nothing’ who was arrested.

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.

Thanks, Mr P!

[Mr. Poster]

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.

Thanks, Mr P!

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

[Gary Barnett]

Half a pint of whisky is, what, five pints? Drunk quickly on an empty stomach that might well get you plastered.

But the idea that anyone who drinks that much would be incapable of rational thought 4 hours later doesn’t wash. I’ve reluctantly dragged myself out of bed having had only a few hours sleep after a heavy night because I had to go to work.

Reluctantly is the key word here, because I imagine the last think on earth Kate would have wanted to do was to leave her cosy cell and traipse the streets. Unless there was a pressing reason for her to do so.

[Gary Barnett]

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.

[Mr. Poster]

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. Poster]

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

[Gary Barnett]

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.

[Mr. Poster]

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

[Robert Linford]

They don't make pilots like they used to.

[Gary Barnett]

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.