C-5: Killed While Soliciting or Not?

[Anna Morris]

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.

[String]

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.

[Mr. Poster]

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

[Gary Barnett]

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?

[Anna Morris]

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.)

[Gary Barnett]

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. ��

[Mr. Poster]

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

[Mr. Poster]

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

[Gary Barnett]

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

Only if she was capable of rational thought, Mr P.

[Mr. Poster]

Not if she was so drunk that she was incapable of rational thought. In that scenario, her reappearance in Aldgate was a complete coincidence.

You keep trying to twist things Gary. Its fun to deal with but its not advancing your theories.

No body said she wasnt capable of rational thought. They said her ability to make decisions would have been impaired.

They are two very different things.

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.

She obviously didnt give a shit there was a murderer on the loose when she was sober or she wouldnt have allowed herself to get so drunk in teh first place.

BUt I agree...asking to be let out of her dry cell is indicative of being impaired with respect to decision making. because of her being drunk.

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.

Nope Gary. You are trying it again. Being impaired in your decisionmaking skills does not mean you forget you have a partner or whatever.

You know that of course.

p

[Gary Barnett]

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

I assumed you might know because you described gin as ‘filthy cheap’.

I did check Pennies... and it told me that gin was 2d a half pint. However, numerous press reports suggest it was more like 2s a half pint - twelve times as expensive.

I’m sure I’ve come across references to unfortunates drinking rum. I’ll see if I can dig them out.

[Gary Barnett]

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

Ah, so she may have been capable of rational thought but not rational decision-making.

[Gary Barnett]

Nope Gary. You are trying it again. Being impaired in your decisionmaking skills does not mean you forget you have a partner or whatever.

But it does mean you forget your own name?

[Mr. Poster]

Ah, so she may have been capable of rational thought but not rational decision-making.

Indeed Gary. Im shocked you cannot figure it out quite frankly.

Have an example.

I am drink impaired. I leave the pub. Its raining. I decide I'm hungry.

I decide, despite having no coat or umbrella, that the only kebab for me is some dodgy kebab shop on teh other side of town which I seem to remember serve a killer doner. Its a hour walk. So off I go. Passing a host of other equally good kebab shops as I get soaked.

That decision I took is not rational - I am getting soaked, its a long way and Im trudging along based on some half remembered notion of their kebabs being better than all others. But it is a rational thought. Im hungry. Im off to get a kebab. Its a drink impaired decision. Instead of doing teh logical thing Im off doing something not very sensible but still rational.

If I decided that instead of walking Im going to ride my pink elephant - thats not a rational decision nor a rational thought.


Lets say I leave the pub and decide, its raining, I have the car, Im driving to the kebab shop.

Thats a rational thought - I have a car and I can drive - but its a drink impaired, not very rational, decision that makes little sense if I was sober. As Im likely to crash, lose my licence and hurt someone.

Alternatively, lets say instead of driving, I decide Im taking the submarine and head for the river.

Thats not rational thought (I have no submarine) nor a rational decision.

Now I know deep wown you know this. Your argument was weak and now its reduced to trying to score points based on a wilful, feigned attempt to not understand.

Everyone knows that alchohol impairs your decision making skills...and Kate was, biologically and based on evidence, still under the influence 4 hours after being legless.

It is therefore illogical to conclude that the direction she took upon release was based upon some rational process of thought.

A non-drink impaired decision would have been, upon leaving, as an example:

Im off to find my man.

I better try and find a bed.

I will go to my usual lodgings.

A drink impaired decision would have been, upon leaving, as an example:

That guy in the pub fancied me rotten, I'll go find him.

This is not my shoe.....that guy in the street stole my shoe, I better look for it.

That bitch Kelly was eyeing up my man...I'll sort her out.

All rational thoughts but drink impaired decisions.

Now given your previous form I know you will take some pointless aspect and try and stretch out the argument.

And best of luck to you.

But I'll leave you to it as I have made my point, backed it up, demonstrated why youre trying to decide what Kate did without appreciating her being drunk is pointless, explained the obvious to you, and patiently addressed your ever more feeble counters.

Readers can decide who they feel made their argument best.

Have a good one!

P

[Gary Barnett]

Indeed Gary. Im shocked you cannot figure it out quite frankly.

Have an example.

I am drink impaired. I leave the pub. Its raining. I decide I'm hungry.

I decide, despite having no coat or umbrella, that the only kebab for me is some dodgy kebab shop on teh other side of town which I seem to remember serve a killer doner. Its a hour walk. So off I go. Passing a host of other equally good kebab shops as I get soaked.

That decision I took is not rational - I am getting soaked, its a long way and Im trudging along based on some half remembered notion of their kebabs being better than all others. But it is a rational thought. Im hungry. Im off to get a kebab. Its a drink impaired decision. Instead of doing teh logical thing Im off doing something not very sensible but still rational.

If I decided that instead of walking Im going to ride my pink elephant - thats not a rational decision nor a rational thought.


Lets say I leave the pub and decide, its raining, I have the car, Im driving to the kebab shop.

Thats a rational thought - I have a car and I can drive - but its a drink impaired, not very rational, decision that makes little sense if I was sober. As Im likely to crash, lose my licence and hurt someone.

Alternatively, lets say instead of driving, I decide Im taking the submarine and head for the river.

Thats not rational thought (I have no submarine) nor a rational decision.

Now I know deep wown you know this. Your argument was weak and now its reduced to trying to score points based on a wilful, feigned attempt to not understand.

Everyone knows that alchohol impairs your decision making skills...and Kate was, biologically and based on evidence, still under the influence 4 hours after being legless.

It is therefore illogical to conclude that the direction she took upon release was based upon some rational process of thought.

A non-drink impaired decision would have been, upon leaving, as an example:

Im off to find my man.

I better try and find a bed.

I will go to my usual lodgings.

A drink impaired decision would have been, upon leaving, as an example:

That guy in the pub fancied me rotten, I'll go find him.

This is not my shoe.....that guy in the street stole my shoe, I better look for it.

That bitch Kelly was eyeing up my man...I'll sort her out.

All rational thoughts but drink impaired decisions.

Now given your previous form I know you will take some pointless aspect and try and stretch out the argument.

And best of luck to you.

But I'll leave you to it as I have made my point, backed it up, demonstrated why youre trying to decide what Kate did without appreciating her being drunk is pointless, explained the obvious to you, and patiently addressed your ever more feeble counters.

Readers can decide who they feel made their argument best.

Have a good one!

P

A masterclass.

Now perhaps we can get back to discussing why Kate acted as she did.