Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C-5: Killed While Soliciting or Not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Debra Arif
    Registered User

  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    i have e mailed case book admin to see if they can throw any light on the issue


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Gareth is absolutely right. The Casebook and Casebook wiki pages provide a summary of events the night of Polly's murder taken from various sources. This is why I mentioned that maybe we do need to take a look at how much personal interpretation has been added to the information 'we' present on the victims.

    Leave a comment:

  • Debra Arif
    Registered User

  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    I don't think there's a particular mystery, Trevor. It's clear to me that the page on Casebook, and related Wiki, was written to tell Polly's story in a readable manner, and that the reference to "one more attempt to find trade" is a modern narrative addition. This may or may not have been Polly's intention, but she evidently didn't state so explicitly; the nearest we get is this, especially the part in bold:

    The Coroner: What were you talking about all that time?
    Witness: I was persuading her to come home with me.
    The Coroner: Did she say anything about having an appointment?
    Witness: No, she did not say that she was to meet anybody. She said she had no money, and that she must make up the amount of her lodgings.
    Mr. Horey: I suppose you formed an opinion of what she meant.
    Witness: No; she said, "it won't be long before I'll be back."

    The Coroner: To your house?
    Witness: Yes; she said there were too many men and women at the place she was staying at, and she didn't like to go there.
    The Coroner: Where was that?
    Witness: I thought from what she told me that it was "The White House".


    For info, Mr Horey was foreman of the jury, and may have been the same [Frederick William] Horey who sat on the Whitechapel Board of Works (see, for example, http://www.casebook.org/press_report...een881221.html). If so, he was a builder who lived at 12 Whitechapel Road.
    Mr Horey's questioning of Emily Holland came up in the podcast because in 'The Five' it was said that Coroner Baxter was questioning Emily Holland.

    I agree about Mr Horey's identification, as did Paul. I have found that inquest juries were normally taken from one or two streets on or around the inquest place.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sam Flynn
    Owl Catcher

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    i have e mailed case book admin to see if they can throw any light on the issue
    I don't think there's a particular mystery, Trevor. It's clear to me that the page on Casebook, and related Wiki, was written to tell Polly's story in a readable manner, and that the reference to "one more attempt to find trade" is a modern narrative addition. This may or may not have been Polly's intention, but she evidently didn't state so explicitly; the nearest we get is this, especially the part in bold:

    The Coroner: What were you talking about all that time?
    Witness: I was persuading her to come home with me.
    The Coroner: Did she say anything about having an appointment?
    Witness: No, she did not say that she was to meet anybody. She said she had no money, and that she must make up the amount of her lodgings.
    Mr. Horey: I suppose you formed an opinion of what she meant.
    Witness: No; she said, "it won't be long before I'll be back."

    The Coroner: To your house?
    Witness: Yes; she said there were too many men and women at the place she was staying at, and she didn't like to go there.
    The Coroner: Where was that?
    Witness: I thought from what she told me that it was "The White House".


    For info, Mr Horey was foreman of the jury, and may have been the same [Frederick William] Horey who sat on the Whitechapel Board of Works (see, for example, http://www.casebook.org/press_report...een881221.html). If so, he was a builder who lived at 12 Whitechapel Road.

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    As you were! Although the vast majority of press accounts were very abbreviated, there was one that provided a much fuller transcript of Holland's testimony. East London Observer to the rescue:

    Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet, whose naturally pale face was flushed with excitement, and who gave her address in a frightened manner, which necessitated the coroner frequently urging her to speak up, was then called. She lived at 18, Thrawl-street, she said - a common lodging-house - and was married.
    The Coroner: Did you know the deceased?
    Witness: Yes, I knew her. For about six weeks she slept in the same room with me, but she has not been in my house for the last ten days.
    The Coroner: Did you know where she was?
    Witness: She told me that she was living in another house, together with a lot of men and women. On Friday morning, at about half-past two o'clock, I was returning from a fire which I had been to see at Ratcliff, when I saw her at the corner of Osborn-street, Whitechapel-road, just outside a grocer's shop there.
    The Coroner: Which way was she going?
    Witness: She was coming down Osborn-street into the Whitechapel-road.
    The Coroner: Was she by herself?
    Witness: Yes.
    The Coroner: Did you stop to speak to her?
    Witness: Yes. She was the worse for drink.
    The Coroner: What do you mean? Could she walk straight?
    Witness: No; she staggered a bit.
    The Coroner: Did she say where she was going?
    Witness: No; but she told me she had altered the place where she was living.
    The Coroner: Did she tell you where that was?
    Witness: No; but I think it was in the next street. Flower and Dean-street, I understood.
    The Coroner: Did she say where she was going that night?
    Witness: No. I persuaded her to come home with me as she was the worse for drink, and I would get her lodgings where I was living, but she refused to come.
    The Coroner: Did she say where she had been?
    Witness: She said, "I have had my lodging money three times to day, and I have spent it."
    The Coroner: Did she say where she was going?
    Witness: No; but when I left her she turned towards this place (Whitechapel-road) and went along there.
    The Coroner: What did she do for a living?
    Witness: I don't know, sir.
    The Coroner: Did she stay out late at night?
    Witness: I don't know. She always seemed to keep herself to herself, and I don't know anybody that she knew.
    The Coroner: She never spoke about herself you mean.
    Witness: No, sir.
    The Coroner: Had you seen her before that night?
    Witness: No, I had not.
    The Coroner: Have you heard of anyone who saw her?
    Witness: No, sir.
    The Coroner: Do you know whether she used to get the worse for drink?
    Witness: I have seen her two or three times the worse for drink.
    The Coroner: Did you consider that she was very cleanly in her habits?
    Witness: Oh yes; she was a very clean woman.
    The Coroner: Did you think she was quarrelsome or good-tempered.
    Witness: I have never seen her quarrel with anybody.
    The Coroner: Did anyone ever threaten her?
    Witness: Not that I am aware of.
    The Coroner: Did she seem as if some trouble was weighing upon her?
    Witness: Yes, sir.
    The Coroner: How long were you with her?
    Witness: I had only just met her, and we were talking for about seven or eight minutes. While we were talking the clock at Whitechapel Church struck half-past two.
    The Coroner: What were you talking about all that time?
    Witness: I was persuading her to come home with me.
    The Coroner: Did she say anything about having an appointment?
    Witness: No, she did not say that she was to meet anybody. She said she had no money, and that she must make up the amount of her lodgings.
    Mr. Horey: I suppose you formed an opinion of what she meant.
    Witness: No; she said, "it won't be long before I'll be back."
    The Coroner: To your house?
    Witness: Yes; she said there were too many men and women at the place she was staying at, and she didn't like to go there.
    The Coroner: Where was that?
    Witness: I thought from what she told me that it was "The White House."
    A Juryman: Do you know of any companions she met?
    Witness: Only of one - a female - with whom she ate and drank for a few days.
    Mr. Horey: What name did you know her by?
    Witness: Only as "Polly."
    Mr. Horey: You were the first one to identify her?
    Witness: Yes, sir.
    Mr. Horey: Were you crying when you identified her?
    Witness: Yes; and it was enough to make anybody shed a tear, sir.

    i have e mailed case book admin to see if they can throw any light on the issue


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

  • Sam Flynn
    Owl Catcher

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    As you were! Although the vast majority of press accounts were very abbreviated, there was one that provided a much fuller transcript of Holland's testimony. East London Observer to the rescue:

    Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet, whose naturally pale face was flushed with excitement, and who gave her address in a frightened manner, which necessitated the coroner frequently urging her to speak up, was then called. She lived at 18, Thrawl-street, she said - a common lodging-house - and was married.
    The Coroner: Did you know the deceased?
    Witness: Yes, I knew her. For about six weeks she slept in the same room with me, but she has not been in my house for the last ten days.
    The Coroner: Did you know where she was?
    Witness: She told me that she was living in another house, together with a lot of men and women. On Friday morning, at about half-past two o'clock, I was returning from a fire which I had been to see at Ratcliff, when I saw her at the corner of Osborn-street, Whitechapel-road, just outside a grocer's shop there.
    The Coroner: Which way was she going?
    Witness: She was coming down Osborn-street into the Whitechapel-road.
    The Coroner: Was she by herself?
    Witness: Yes.
    The Coroner: Did you stop to speak to her?
    Witness: Yes. She was the worse for drink.
    The Coroner: What do you mean? Could she walk straight?
    Witness: No; she staggered a bit.
    The Coroner: Did she say where she was going?
    Witness: No; but she told me she had altered the place where she was living.
    The Coroner: Did she tell you where that was?
    Witness: No; but I think it was in the next street. Flower and Dean-street, I understood.
    The Coroner: Did she say where she was going that night?
    Witness: No. I persuaded her to come home with me as she was the worse for drink, and I would get her lodgings where I was living, but she refused to come.
    The Coroner: Did she say where she had been?
    Witness: She said, "I have had my lodging money three times to day, and I have spent it."
    The Coroner: Did she say where she was going?
    Witness: No; but when I left her she turned towards this place (Whitechapel-road) and went along there.
    The Coroner: What did she do for a living?
    Witness: I don't know, sir.
    The Coroner: Did she stay out late at night?
    Witness: I don't know. She always seemed to keep herself to herself, and I don't know anybody that she knew.
    The Coroner: She never spoke about herself you mean.
    Witness: No, sir.
    The Coroner: Had you seen her before that night?
    Witness: No, I had not.
    The Coroner: Have you heard of anyone who saw her?
    Witness: No, sir.
    The Coroner: Do you know whether she used to get the worse for drink?
    Witness: I have seen her two or three times the worse for drink.
    The Coroner: Did you consider that she was very cleanly in her habits?
    Witness: Oh yes; she was a very clean woman.
    The Coroner: Did you think she was quarrelsome or good-tempered.
    Witness: I have never seen her quarrel with anybody.
    The Coroner: Did anyone ever threaten her?
    Witness: Not that I am aware of.
    The Coroner: Did she seem as if some trouble was weighing upon her?
    Witness: Yes, sir.
    The Coroner: How long were you with her?
    Witness: I had only just met her, and we were talking for about seven or eight minutes. While we were talking the clock at Whitechapel Church struck half-past two.
    The Coroner: What were you talking about all that time?
    Witness: I was persuading her to come home with me.
    The Coroner: Did she say anything about having an appointment?
    Witness: No, she did not say that she was to meet anybody. She said she had no money, and that she must make up the amount of her lodgings.
    Mr. Horey: I suppose you formed an opinion of what she meant.
    Witness: No; she said, "it won't be long before I'll be back."
    The Coroner: To your house?
    Witness: Yes; she said there were too many men and women at the place she was staying at, and she didn't like to go there.
    The Coroner: Where was that?
    Witness: I thought from what she told me that it was "The White House."
    A Juryman: Do you know of any companions she met?
    Witness: Only of one - a female - with whom she ate and drank for a few days.
    Mr. Horey: What name did you know her by?
    Witness: Only as "Polly."
    Mr. Horey: You were the first one to identify her?
    Witness: Yes, sir.
    Mr. Horey: Were you crying when you identified her?
    Witness: Yes; and it was enough to make anybody shed a tear, sir.

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    One wonders whether Holland would have tried to persuade Polly to accompany her knowing that the latter was penniless and would have to pay, were this not the case. Alas we don't know, as it's not stated either way; at this point in the Ripper series, the newspaper coverage wasn't as extensive nor as detailed as it would later become, and Holland's exchange with the coroner was either very brief (esp. by Baxter's standards), or it was perfunctorily summarised by the press agency.

    I think the latter is a strong possibility, and I am puzzled as to where the citation comes from, and how did it get onto casebook, and why has it has been left for so long before it being questioned.


    I also find the term "trade" interesting is it a Victorian word used by Victorian prostitutes to describe their work.


    Nowadays street prostitutes refer to their work as "business"


    That citation if correct clearly kicks a big hole in Rubenholds theory



    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

  • Sam Flynn
    Owl Catcher

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    Was Holland offering a free bed for the night?
    One wonders whether Holland would have tried to persuade Polly to accompany her knowing that the latter was penniless and would have to pay, were this not the case. Alas we don't know, as it's not stated either way; at this point in the Ripper series, the newspaper coverage wasn't as extensive nor as detailed as it would later become, and Holland's exchange with the coroner was either very brief (esp. by Baxter's standards), or it was perfunctorily summarised by the press agency.

    Leave a comment:

  • Gary Barnett
    Rambler

  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Thanks, Gareth. I had the same results when I looked for actual or similar wording.
    I agree that Polly not going with Emily Holland suggests she wasn't interested solely in just finding a place to sleep at that particular moment, otherwise why not take Emily up on the offer?
    Debs/Gareth,

    Was Holland offering a free bed for the night?

    Leave a comment:

  • Debra Arif
    Registered User

  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    I'd suggest we can underline "one more attempt to find trade", too, Debs. I've not found that, or anything like it, in any contemporary source. Emily Holland, the last witness to see Nichols alive at ~2:30, said that Polly went on her way after resisting Holland's attempt to persuade Polly to come home with her. On parting, Polly said that she was going to get the money to pay for her lodgings, but nothing is said about how she intended to do it.

    One has to wonder why Polly refused Emily's offer, preferring to stay out in order to get the money. Whether that was by prostitution, begging or some other means, it does seem to suggest that Polly's intention wasn't to sleep rough, at least not at the point of her encounter with Emily Holland.

    It's also interesting that Holland found Polly very drunk, so had she got hold of some more alcohol since being turfed out of her doss-house? Sure, she'd been the "worse for drink" when evicted, but apparently "not drunk" (several papers; Press Agency source?), however this was an hour earlier. If she'd been walking around for an hour in the fresh air, one might think that Polly would have sobered up somewhat, yet she was "very much the worse for drink" and "staggering" when Holland met her.
    Thanks, Gareth. I had the same results when I looked for actual or similar wording.
    I agree that Polly not going with Emily Holland suggests she wasn't interested solely in just finding a place to sleep at that particular moment, otherwise why not take Emily up on the offer?

    Leave a comment:

  • Sam Flynn
    Owl Catcher

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    Thanks for pointing that out. It is OK to use ¨prone¨ as I did, meaning lying flat. The more definitive meaning of prone is, lying flat, face down. Supine can mean lying down but in a more exact meaning, face up. In discussing forensics, the stricter meanings are better used.

    All of which means I just looked up both words and learned a lot. Thanks, Sam!
    You're welcome, Anna. Don't worry, most people use "prone" to mean both. In this context, though, it's good to have the clarity.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sam Flynn
    Owl Catcher

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Polly tells Emily that she had had her doss money three times that day and had drunk it away. She says she will return to Flower and Dean Street where she could share a bed with a man after one more attempt to find trade.

    Perhaps we really do need to suck up some of the criticism aimed at us and our interpretations if we have let things like this slip through the net unchallenged?
    I'd suggest we can underline "one more attempt to find trade", too, Debs. I've not found that, or anything like it, in any contemporary source. Emily Holland, the last witness to see Nichols alive at ~2:30, said that Polly went on her way after resisting Holland's attempt to persuade Polly to come home with her. On parting, Polly said that she was going to get the money to pay for her lodgings, but nothing is said about how she intended to do it.

    One has to wonder why Polly refused Emily's offer, preferring to stay out in order to get the money. Whether that was by prostitution, begging or some other means, it does seem to suggest that Polly's intention wasn't to sleep rough, at least not at the point of her encounter with Emily Holland.

    It's also interesting that Holland found Polly very drunk, so had she got hold of some more alcohol since being turfed out of her doss-house? Sure, she'd been the "worse for drink" when evicted, but apparently "not drunk" (several papers; Press Agency source?), however this was an hour earlier. If she'd been walking around for an hour in the fresh air, one might think that Polly would have sobered up somewhat, yet she was "very much the worse for drink" and "staggering" when Holland met her.

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    Hi, Trevor. One thing that is peculiar in these cases is there is evidence throats were cut while the victim was on the ground, thus strangulation or other means of control.

    For instance with Annie, there was arterial blood spray on the fence, only a short distance up from the ground. With Polly and Kate, blood was running down the gutter or beneath them. (We could add Liz to this list.) The killer got Mary in bed, in the position he preferred.

    It seems if the women were bent forward, skirts up, there would have sometimes been blood spray on skirts. I could see the skirts shielding the killer from gore but why would we not see a downward trajectory of arterial spray while the women were lowered to the ground? Or if most of the bleeding was done on the way down, why was there such a direct spray pattern on the fence, etc.?

    I can see that pulling the head back would better expose the great vessels and lead to the near decapitations. Actually that activity alone tends to argue against throats cut while the victims were prone.

    Yet arterial blood spray should be immediate upon severance of the artery.

    Anna

    Can I again refer to questions put to Dr Biggs

    Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

    A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

    Q. The doctors in their reports offer opinions as to in which position the killer was in relation to the victims when carrying out the murders. Are these opinions reliable or simply guesswork?

    A. In answer to your question, it is really impossible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20thcentury, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

  • Anna Morris
    Registered User

  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Should that be "supine" rather than "prone", Anna?
    Thanks for pointing that out. It is OK to use ¨prone¨ as I did, meaning lying flat. The more definitive meaning of prone is, lying flat, face down. Supine can mean lying down but in a more exact meaning, face up. In discussing forensics, the stricter meanings are better used.

    All of which means I just looked up both words and learned a lot. Thanks, Sam!

    Leave a comment:

  • Sam Flynn
    Owl Catcher

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    I can see that pulling the head back would better expose the great vessels and lead to the near decapitations. Actually that activity alone tends to argue against throats cut while the victims were prone.
    Should that be "supine" rather than "prone", Anna?

    Leave a comment:

  • Anna Morris
    Registered User

  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Hi, Trevor. One thing that is peculiar in these cases is there is evidence throats were cut while the victim was on the ground, thus strangulation or other means of control.

    For instance with Annie, there was arterial blood spray on the fence, only a short distance up from the ground. With Polly and Kate, blood was running down the gutter or beneath them. (We could add Liz to this list.) The killer got Mary in bed, in the position he preferred.

    It seems if the women were bent forward, skirts up, there would have sometimes been blood spray on skirts. I could see the skirts shielding the killer from gore but why would we not see a downward trajectory of arterial spray while the women were lowered to the ground? Or if most of the bleeding was done on the way down, why was there such a direct spray pattern on the fence, etc.?

    I can see that pulling the head back would better expose the great vessels and lead to the near decapitations. Actually that activity alone tends to argue against throats cut while the victims were prone.

    Yet arterial blood spray should be immediate upon severance of the artery.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X