Adams Article - NIR Issue 1

[Monty]

New thread

Today, 07:05 AM #40
Adam Went
Researcher




Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,781

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, i'd like to thank everybody who has commented and given feedback on the first instalment of "According to Adam" so far, it has been much appreciated. I am very pleased that at least it has caused some discussion.

Monty:

Ah yes. I could see your response coming from a mile away, almost word for word - even warned you about it, didn't I?!

It's not my desire to derail this thread dedicated to the first issue of NIR as a whole with an Eddowes debate, but I will try and give an abbreviated answer to some of your points:

I would have liked to see the factual evidence here. Medical preferably. Of course Adam is judging from when Robinson picked Eddowes up and not from the timing of her last drink (which will never be known). This is personal opinion and not ascertained fact.

Thinking back to high school, Monty (which wasn't all that long ago) it was compulsory that we all took part in a First Aid course, and gained our certificates in that - an element of which included learning the tables for intoxication and the amount of time it took for alcohol to leave the system and how best to treat drunks and so on. While I can't claim it to be a medical opinion as such, it assisted greatly in the understanding of how alcohol leaves the system which I outlined in the column, and which, given the time that had elapsed between arrest and release, verses the condition of Catherine when she was arrested, leaves little - in fact, I would say no doubt that she was still considerably under the influence of alcohol at 1 AM.

Yes, Australias crushing defeat at the hands of the English during the last 2 Ashes would drive a young Australian to drink.

Indeed. Did I mention to you that I met Ben Hilfenhaus at the pub a couple of weeks back? Would have invited him outdoors for a net session if it hadn't been dark.

Seriously, the fact is we are all indeed different and all have differing tolerances to drink. Alcoholics have operated quite competently in all various aspects of life from the Police Force, to Journalist, to what ever. Whilst its questionable is they could maintain such a lifestyle the fact is they can function adequately.

Now, I am not stating Eddowes was an alcoholic, I am stating that recovery rates vary. I myself have experienced it, and Im sure many of you have a similar story. Unless Adam wishes to provide fact that it is impossible to recover with 5 hours.

Absolutely correct, and again, I said as much in the column - alcohol affects different people in different ways for different lengths of time.

However, I don't know of anyone, no matter how fit and how good of a metabolism they have, who can be so drunk that they can't stand up, and then a few hours later be perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.

This is made worse in Kate's case by the fact that she was middle aged, had led a pretty rough life and was clearly not in peak medical condition. Heavy intoxication would have had a worse effect on her than it might have to others.

You are also quite right that she may have seemed sober to the officers at Bishopsgate, but nobody ever claimed that those under the influence couldn't be convincing actors, especially when there was no such thing as a breatho machine in 1888. Even those who are heavily under the influence of alcohol can often feign sobriety for a few minutes if they wish to do so. Asking what time it is, alluding to a flogging and saying good night is hardly an indication of her sobriety! It's not my contention that she was still so drunk that she couldn't string a coherent sentence together!

Kate may well have believed that she was fine to go - but there's no question that there would still have been a considerable amount of alcohol in her system. Those who have been drinking often don't even realise it - again, it's why those who have been drinking aren't allowed behind the wheel of a car, for instance. It's why the coppers often catch people still drink driving the afternoon after their big bender, let alone the same night. It affects your judgement, slows down your reflexes and can make you behave quite irrationally - which would explain a lot of what happened over the 45 minutes following her release!

I wish to make it clear that I don't think Kate was still trashed, she had enough time to get past that stage, but not past the stage of still being tipsy and having her judgement impaired.

Her location in Mitre Square is a very clear indication of where she was going. If Lewande is correct, her engaement in conversation with a man in Church Passage tell us exactly what her intentions were.

Well that's your own interpretation shining through there, that Kate had the intention of using Mitre Square in the absense of Morris, who she was aware would be absent - we've only recently had that same discussion and disagreed.

Now this is where we must consider the time period. Its coming to late Saturday night, early Sunday morning. A traditional time for drunken brawls and serious misdemeanours. The Police would have been very aware of this and would start clearing their cells of those deemed able fit enough to look after themselves. Clearly Eddowes was one of these. The fact Hutt checked her numerous times during the night indicates she was under constant assessment. He engaged her in coversation, a tactic used for assessment. And Hutt was no green. He had been in this situation many times and had the experience to make such descisions.

But this was no ordinary situation, Monty. Jack the Ripper was on the loose and the police knew it. Women were being warned to stay indoors at night time, especially those of Kate's standing, and generally not put themselves in harm's way. Once the police took Kate in, regardless of who came in afterwards, it was their responsibility to see to it that she stayed until she was in perfect condition to take care of herself - even if she had to stay there all night, at least she would be safe in the morning. You just don't take risk in a situation like that, even if you have to double or triple up the normal capacity of the cells. Instead, she really was let out to the wolf and it didn't take him long.

Let me be perfectly clear about this: I believe that, overall, the police of 1888 did a commendable job with the resources they had at their disposal. But, let's be honest, they dropped the ball on the night of the Double Event and it ended up costing Kate her life. And as I said in the column, who knows what to believe about their testimony afterwards, as the had every reason to make the release of a woman like Kate onto the streets at that hour of the morning look the least damning to them and their embattled comrades as possible.

As to being "selective", you may in fact also notice that I actually deliberately extended the time of Kate's time in the hands of the police - she was actually supposedly picked up at around 8.30 pm, but I rounded that back to 8 pm for the sake of the argument and to not risk being too narrow with my time margins - god knows i've had enough of the bloody time margins after the Berner Street/Fanny Mortimer saga that goes on and on..... so actually, if we wanted to be really technical and selective, we could say that her sobering up period was actually 4.5 hours rather than 5, which makes it even more hopeless for her chances.

The beauty of an opinion column is just that - it gives the opportunity to provide opinions on a subject which often does not get discussed at all, or not thoroughly enough in any case, and gets into the nitty gritty that you can't quite make a full length article out of.

Thanks once again for your response and comments, Monty.

Cris:

Thanks also for your comments.

Certainly I agree with much of what you say - and if it hadn't been Kate, it probably would have been some other unfortunate in her place. It's not my wish to play the blame game, as that is unfair on everybody with the benefit of hindsight, but as i've just stated to Monty, the actions of the police that evening leaves much to be desired, in my view, and was certainly a contributing factor in what would happen later on that morning.

But it's true enough to say that it all ultimately comes back to Kate and the lifestyle she was leading at the time.

Cheers,
Adam.

Ah yes. I could see your response coming from a mile away, almost word for word - even warned you about it, didn't I?!

Yet you chose not to cover my foreseen response in your piece? However, seeing as you were so eager to gain my attention by pointing out this upcoming article I really didn’t want to disappoint by ignoring it.

It's not my desire to derail this thread dedicated to the first issue of NIR as a whole with an Eddowes debate, but I will try and give an abbreviated answer to some of your points:

Agreed. Hence the new thread.

Thinking back to high school, Monty (which wasn't all that long ago) it was compulsory that we all took part in a First Aid course, and gained our certificates in that - an element of which included learning the tables for intoxication and the amount of time it took for alcohol to leave the system and how best to treat drunks and so on. While I can't claim it to be a medical opinion as such, it assisted greatly in the understanding of how alcohol leaves the system which I outlined in the column, and which, given the time that had elapsed between arrest and release, verses the condition of Catherine when she was arrested, leaves little - in fact, I would say no doubt that she was still considerably under the influence of alcohol at 1 AM.

Hmm, yeah, I need a little more than a High School First Aid course as a sound guide. However as you do not know when Eddowes drank her last drink before her arrest, you are in no position to state the time.

Indeed. Did I mention to you that I met Ben Hilfenhaus at the pub a couple of weeks back? Would have invited him outdoors for a net session if it hadn't been dark.

Working there was he? Another career destroyed by the English.

Absolutely correct, and again, I said as much in the column - alcohol affects different people in different ways for different lengths of time

However, I don't know of anyone, no matter how fit and how good of a metabolism they have, who can be so drunk that they can't stand up, and then a few hours later be perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.

Seeing as she was manoeuvred back to Bishopsgate Station in relatively swift time she was hardly legless.

This is made worse in Kate's case by the fact that she was middle aged, had led a pretty rough life and was clearly not in peak medical condition. Heavy intoxication would have had a worse effect on her than it might have to others.

Again, that is your unqualified medical opinion. As you are unaware of Eddowes physical condition other than post mortem, and her personally, I think this supposition, whilst understandable, is not proven and can be countered.

You are also quite right that she may have seemed sober to the officers at Bishopsgate, but nobody ever claimed that those under the influence couldn't be convincing actors, especially when there was no such thing as a breatho machine in 1888. Even those who are heavily under the influence of alcohol can often feign sobriety for a few minutes if they wish to do so. Asking what time it is, alluding to a flogging and saying good night is hardly an indication of her sobriety! It's not my contention that she was still so drunk that she couldn't string a coherent sentence together!

…Those who are heavily under the influence of alcohol can often feign sobriety for a few minutes? Really now. If so then Byfield and Hutt are absolved of all responsibility, as they were duped by a 45 year old drunk.

Kate may well have believed that she was fine to go - but there's no question that there would still have been a considerable amount of alcohol in her system. Those who have been drinking often don't even realise it - again, it's why those who have been drinking aren't allowed behind the wheel of a car, for instance. It's why the coppers often catch people still drink driving the afternoon after their big bender, let alone the same night. It affects your judgement, slows down your reflexes and can make you behave quite irrationally - which would explain a lot of what happened over the 45 minutes following her release

!

"Her location in Mitre Square is a very clear indication of where she was going. If Lewande is correct, her engaement in conversation with a man in Church Passage tell us exactly what her intentions were”. - Monty

Well that's your own interpretation shining through there, that Kate had the intention of using Mitre Square in the absense of Morris, who she was aware would be absent - we've only recently had that same discussion and disagreed.

Absolutely. Eddowes was found in Mitre Square and therefore it was her intention to head in that direction. Hutts testimony supports that. Lewande identifies Eddowes clothing as that of the woman he saw, again, supporting evidence.

As for your latter sentence. I never insinuated anything of the sort, do not lay emphasis on something I never stated.

But this was no ordinary situation, Monty. Jack the Ripper was on the loose and the police knew it. Women were being warned to stay indoors at night time, especially those of Kate's standing, and generally not put themselves in harm's way. Once the police took Kate in, regardless of who came in afterwards, it was their responsibility to see to it that she stayed until she was in perfect condition to take care of herself - even if she had to stay there all night, at least she would be safe in the morning. You just don't take risk in a situation like that, even if you have to double or triple up the normal capacity of the cells. Instead, she really was let out to the wolf and it didn't take him long.

If only they had your hindsight Adam. The bottom line is the City still needed to be policed. The Officers had other responsibilities such as dealing with the other numerous Drunk and Disorderly persons that night. They were instructed to watch suspicious couples only, and not ordered to monitor every drunken female, which would have been an unfeasible task.

Obviously she was seemed as able to look after herself. She was lucid, responded to questions and engaged in conversation. They simply wouldn’t have had the capacity to hold every drunk until the safer daylight hours. The practicalities of what you ask is nigh on impossible for the Police to implement and monitor safely.

Let me be perfectly clear about this: I believe that, overall, the police of 1888 did a commendable job with the resources they had at their disposal. But, let's be honest, they dropped the ball on the night of the Double Event and it ended up costing Kate her life. And as I said in the column, who knows what to believe about their testimony afterwards, as the had every reason to make the release of a woman like Kate onto the streets at that hour of the morning look the least damning to them and their embattled comrades as possible.

No, that simply is not true. Eddowes life was taken because one sick b*stard had the urge to kill. The Police hold no responsibility for her death and rightly so. You and I are responsible for our actions, no one else. They released Eddowes because she was deemed sober enough to look after herself. As stated, she engaged in conversation, was lucid and deemed capable by experienced Officers.

You must remember that Eddowes would have been one of many, many women out alone that night. It just so happened to be her Jack chose.

As to being "selective", you may in fact also notice that I actually deliberately extended the time of Kate's time in the hands of the police - she was actually supposedly picked up at around 8.30 pm, but I rounded that back to 8 pm for the sake of the argument and to not risk being too narrow with my time margins - god knows i've had enough of the bloody time margins after the Berner Street/Fanny Mortimer saga that goes on and on..... so actually, if we wanted to be really technical and selective, we could say that her sobering up period was actually 4.5 hours rather than 5, which makes it even more hopeless for her chances.

I did note that error, but thought it best to let it slide. Despite the fact that falsity more supports your belief rather than mine. Its understandable as you require all the supporting evidence you can get.

The beauty of an opinion column is just that - it gives the opportunity to provide opinions on a subject which often does not get discussed at all, or not thoroughly enough in any case, and gets into the nitty gritty that you can't quite make a full length article out of.

Thanks once again for your response and comments, Monty.

Indeed, and no worries.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Adam,

I have found a few things that might help clarify this problem a little.

Example 1.

Alcohol exhibits 0-order kinetics, or close to it. Most people metabolize alcohol at a rate of 20 to 30 mg/dl/hour. Most states peg 80 mg/dl as the legal definition for drunkenness, so it would take 3 or 4 hours from that levelto clear the alcohol completely. Anybody in law enforcement or emergency medicine can cite cases of people with blood alcohol level six times that, and it would take six times longer. "Totally wasted" is not the most accurate measurement in the world.

Being legally drunk is not the same as being so drunk you cannot stand up. A person needing help walking is way beyond the position of being legally drunk.

Example 2.

Alcohol is the only ingredient in any beverage which matters as far as sobering up goes. Different types of alcoholic drinks take different amounts of time to process because they contain different amounts of alcohol. Generally speaking, it takes a healthy liver 1 hour to oxidize 1 ounce worth of alcohol. That's roughly the amount in 1 bottle of beer, 1 glass of wine or 1 shot of hard liquor. If you drink more alcohol than that in a single hour, it takes a correspondingly longer period to sober up.

The best way to sober up quickly is to plan for it while you're drinking. Eat a good meal before or during your alcohol consumption, that way you can decrease the alcohol effects. The food absorbs the alcohol and slows the rate at which it is taken into the body. Alternate alcoholic drinks with water and take time between drinks. It allows your body to process it at its own rate, lessening the effects of alcohol but also decreasing the time it takes to sober up.

Example 3.

How long does alcohol stay in the system?

Depending on approximately how much Alcohol is consumed, it stays in your system for ten hours. About ten percent is excreted through sweat, and urine. Also, the amount of time that alcohol lingers in your body depends on a multitude of factors. Your weight, height, gender, and what you are drinking, all come into play.

Another answer...the length of time alcohol stays in the body depends on the person consumption or intake of the alcohol. So the more you drink the longer it will take. For every hour after you drink you loose 0.15 from the blood alcohol level.

Example 4


http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/dri...127227453.html

Now after all of that... we are left with the problem. Just how drunk was Eddowes, and can we determine from her bahviour how far past the legal definition of drunk she was?

Alcohol takes about 10 hours to leave the system.. but in some people, it can take as much as two days.


If any of that helps.. then so be it.
I personally have been witness to literally thousands of people being intoxicated, affected by, drunk, very drunk and completely "out of it" in my career as a (very sober) stage entertainer and DJ. Sleeping if off is the answer.. but 4 hours is not going to be enough time (imho) for a person so drunk that they have problems walking, and must be aided.

So the question really is, given Eddowes physique, age, condition of liver, kidneys and bodily functions.. how drunk was she? Did she have remnants of a hearty meal in her stomach..or just small amounts of food?

Well we know she was not a tall person.. quite small in fact. We know that her kidneys were apparently in a state of a medical condition called Bright's disease.If she was a known drinker, her liver would be impaired. Her age is against her as well.


kindly

Phil

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Thanks for moving this into a seperate thread.

Yet you chose not to cover my foreseen response in your piece? However, seeing as you were so eager to gain my attention by pointing out this upcoming article I really didn’t want to disappoint by ignoring it.

Because it's a column rather than a book, Monty, I deemed it prudent that I not add an extra section on to my column as a "just in case" for your responses. You are, after all, the only one thus far who has had so much to say on the matter. I apologise if that in any way wounded your pride.

Hmm, yeah, I need a little more than a High School First Aid course as a sound guide. However as you do not know when Eddowes drank her last drink before her arrest, you are in no position to state the time.

Well, my mother is a nurse and I have a friend who is studying to be a doctor at University who both concur with my opinion, if that is of any help to you. But you are quite right that we don't know when Eddowes had her last drink - though logic tells us it can't have been that long before she was discovered, unless the police allowed her to behave in such a manner for an extended period of time before taking her in?

Working there was he? Another career destroyed by the English.

Working his charm on the ladies was about all he was working. Much like myself, actually.

Seeing as she was manoeuvred back to Bishopsgate Station in relatively swift time she was hardly legless.

She had to be assisted back to the station - it's not like they made her walk of her own accord (which she would not have been capable of anyway), they were virtually carrying her!

Again, that is your unqualified medical opinion. As you are unaware of Eddowes physical condition other than post mortem, and her personally, I think this supposition, whilst understandable, is not proven and can be countered.

So is it your contention that aside from the fact that Kate must have been a medical phenomenon, who should have made her fortune in hangover cures rather than walking the streets, she was also a picture of health? Because we know that wasn't the case.

…Those who are heavily under the influence of alcohol can often feign sobriety for a few minutes? Really now. If so then Byfield and Hutt are absolved of all responsibility, as they were duped by a 45 year old drunk.

Have you never tried to get into a pub or club whilst completely out of it, Monty, and had to feign relative sobriety for a few moments in order to be allowed entrance?

I'm not blaming Byfield and Hutt for Kate's death, let's not go down that track because it's not true - BUT they should have been made aware of her condition when she entered the station, the time that had elapsed since her arrival at the station, and therefore made an estimate as to her likely condition and realised that releasing her was out of the question.

Absolutely. Eddowes was found in Mitre Square and therefore it was her intention to head in that direction. Hutts testimony supports that. Lewande identifies Eddowes clothing as that of the woman he saw, again, supporting evidence.

You speak of evidence. Where's the evidence that Kate wasn't simply aimlessly wandering the streets and happened to arrive at Mitre Square? After all, half an hour elapsed between her release and sighting at Church Passage, when it would have taken nowhere near that long to walk the distance. Surely if Mitre Square was her intended destination then she should have arrived there much quicker, if she had all her senses about her?

If only they had your hindsight Adam. The bottom line is the City still needed to be policed. The Officers had other responsibilities such as dealing with the other numerous Drunk and Disorderly persons that night. They were instructed to watch suspicious couples only, and not ordered to monitor every drunken female, which would have been an unfeasible task.

What does any of that have to do with somebody who was already in police custody and being taken care of by those working at the station, rather than out on their beats?

It happens now, Monty, where cells get doubled up and what not if there is a case of overcrowding - it would have been nothing to do it in 1888 when the prison system was much more harsh.

And to finish, I am in complete agreement with you that Jack is the one who takes the responsibility for ending Eddowes' life. There's no question about that.

I know it is your wont to defend the police, and that's your business, but the point of my column was simply to offer an alternate viewpoint and show that certain factors which were within the control of others, including the police, may not have been handled as they should have been that night, and that it ultimately had a contribution to her fate.

Phil:

Many thanks for posting up that very useful information, i'm pleased that you seem to be in agreement with me in regards to the passage of alcohol from the body and the time it takes to become sober.

There's no question at all that certain individuals react differently to alcohol, and some take longer to recover from it than others, depending on a variety of factors which you've already named.

Kate may well have passed alcohol quicker from her system than others would but as you say, in the time that had elapsed from her being taken to the police station to her being released (and even her being killed), there's just no way that she had improved to a point where she was sober enough to be in total control of her faculties.

You don't need to be a doctor to work that much out - it's a small drop of personal experience combined with a dollop of common sense.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,

Because it's a column rather than a book, Monty, I deemed it prudent that I not add an extra section on to my column as a "just in case" for your responses. You are, after all, the only one thus far who has had so much to say on the matter. I apologise if that in any way wounded your pride.

Apology not needed.

Column, article, tomato ketchup, tomato sauce….and? You laid you opinion and showed it to be one sided and ill considered.

Well, my mother is a nurse and I have a friend who is studying to be a doctor at University who both concur with my opinion, if that is of any help to you. But you are quite right that we don't know when Eddowes had her last drink - though logic tells us it can't have been that long before she was discovered, unless the police allowed her to behave in such a manner for an extended period of time before taking her in?

Why would the Police be aware of her behaviour for an extended period of tme? The amount of alcohol in her body at 1am is irrelevant as she was deemed sober and able to look after herself.

Working his charm on the ladies was about all he was working. Much like myself, actually.

You need a lot of work then Sunshine.

So is it your contention that aside from the fact that Kate must have been a medical phenomenon, who should have made her fortune in hangover cures rather than walking the streets, she was also a picture of health? Because we know that wasn't the case.

And the relevance of a medical phenomenon is?

Robinson picked her up at 8.30pm. 8.45pm Byfield booked her in at Bishopsgate. 8.50pm Robinson is locking her in her cell. Therefore she took 15 minutes to travel from Aldgate High Street to Bishopsgate. I takes me around 10 minutes on a brisk walk. Therefore she wasn’t the legless stumbling wreck you portray her to be.

Have you never tried to get into a pub or club whilst completely out of it, Monty, and had to feign relative sobriety for a few moments in order to be allowed entrance?

I'm not blaming Byfield and Hutt for Kate's death, let's not go down that track because it's not true - BUT they should have been made aware of her condition when she entered the station, the time that had elapsed since her arrival at the station, and therefore made an estimate as to her likely condition and realised that releasing her was out of the question.

They were aware of her condition throughout, its in the inquest testimony. Again, we are talking about two experienced Officers here. They would have been far more experienced with an 1888 drunk than you or I are. The arrogance in assuming you know better, despite having no experience or even researched the subject, is obvious.

You speak of evidence. Where's the evidence that Kate wasn't simply aimlessly wandering the streets and happened to arrive at Mitre Square? After all, half an hour elapsed between her release and sighting at Church Passage, when it would have taken nowhere near that long to walk the distance. Surely if Mitre Square was her intended destination then she should have arrived there much quicker, if she had all her senses about her?

Erm, how do you know she hadn’t arrived immediately? Where is you evidence for that belief? How do you know she hadnt been loitering around Mitre Square since she left Bishopsgate nick?

It happens now, Monty, where cells get doubled up and what not if there is a case of overcrowding - it would have been nothing to do it in 1888 when the prison system was much more harsh.

Its not about harshness. Its about manpower. The bottom line is that Eddowes was deemed sober, and capable, by experience Officers who where there at the time. As opposed to an inexperienced Civvie who is 12,000 miles away and a 120 odd years too late in passing his own judgement.

I know it is your wont to defend the police, and that's your business, but the point of my column was simply to offer an alternate viewpoint and show that certain factors which were within the control of others, including the police, may not have been handled as they should have been that night, and that it ultimately had a contribution to her fate.

OK, as Ive mentioned to your buddy Phil, it is not my wont to defend the Police. I, along with Rob, have exposed Watkins as an Officer who was caught having sex whilst on duty (shattering his enduring image as a good upright PC) and Hutt who beat up a prisoner whilst the man was in the dock. I have presented others as they are, warts and all, good and bad.

You want to present a view then that is your business also. However, in the spirit of fairness and fair judgement in particular, I will state my view and provide my evidence.

Monty

[Mike Covell]

Without detracting from the discussion going on between Monty and Adam, I walked this route when I was in London last year, I used Google Maps as a guide and still had the route saved, it stated that it took 9 minutes to cover the 0.5 miles but it took me longer due to the heavy foot traffic, and the crossing of several roads. The route I took was,

City Of London Police, 182 Bishopsgate
City of London EC2M 4WN






1. Head northwest on Victoria Ave toward Bishopsgate/A10



39 ft


2. Turn left onto Bishopsgate/A10



0.1 mi


3. Turn left onto Houndsditch/A1211



256 ft


4. Turn right onto Outwich St/A1211Continue to follow Outwich St




161 ft


5. Slight left onto Camomile St/A1211Continue to follow A1211
Destination will be on the left




0.3 mi


Aldgate United Kingdom


The other route, taking in the parallel road between the A1211 towards Houndsditch. I took the route because it took me past Goring-street, but when I took it I forgot to take any pictures. I could have kicked myself.

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Column, article, tomato ketchup, tomato sauce….and? You laid you opinion and showed it to be one sided and ill considered.

Certainly not ill considered, i've held the same view for some time and have stated similar in public in the past. It's simply that the column was a chance to present an alternate viewpoint in a more thorough manner - I knew it would rattle some cages, including yours, and that's part of the idea of it, it's not there to be a soft read for everyone.

Why would the Police be aware of her behaviour for an extended period of tme? The amount of alcohol in her body at 1am is irrelevant as she was deemed sober and able to look after herself.

And that's the point, just because she was "deemed" sober doesn't mean that she was, and it's been made pretty clear I think that she could not have been. Surely you will admit that it's unlikely she had been allowed to carry on in the same vein she was discovered in for a particularly lengthy period of time beforehand? But it makes little difference, even if she had been in the same way for an hour, 2 hours or 3 hours, we're not playing with a matter of small degrees here, it's a pretty clear cut case really.

You need a lot of work then Sunshine.

I certainly do. Perhaps you can offer some words of wisdom, Casanova?

Robinson picked her up at 8.30pm. 8.45pm Byfield booked her in at Bishopsgate. 8.50pm Robinson is locking her in her cell. Therefore she took 15 minutes to travel from Aldgate High Street to Bishopsgate. I takes me around 10 minutes on a brisk walk. Therefore she wasn’t the legless stumbling wreck you portray her to be.

As I said, because she was being virtually carried, Monty! She couldn't even stand up! Have another read through the descriptions of her when she was found in the street. She was pretty far gone....

They were aware of her condition throughout, its in the inquest testimony. Again, we are talking about two experienced Officers here. They would have been far more experienced with an 1888 drunk than you or I are. The arrogance in assuming you know better, despite having no experience or even researched the subject, is obvious.

But you are presuming for a start that their inquest testimony is gospel, and I dispute that. As I said before and in the column, they had every reason, following news of her death and the fact she had been released from prison less than an hour beforehand, and with all and sundry in a rage at the inability of the police to capture the killer, to paint the events of that evening in a rather favourable light for themselves.

Even if Kate was still visibly drunk (and i'm not saying she was, only that she was still under the influence) and they decided she was well enough to make her way back onto the streets, then put yourself in their position - self preservation in crisis mode for themselves and the force as a whole comes into play.

Erm, how do you know she hadn’t arrived immediately? Where is you evidence for that belief? How do you know she hadnt been loitering around Mitre Square since she left Bishopsgate nick?

So it's your contention that she'd been hanging around outside, in the vicinity of a club, for 15-20 minutes without anybody else seeing her in the meantime? Or it's your contention that Jack was stupid enough to talk to her in the one spot for 15-20 minutes and risk being seen by more witnesses?

You get on my case for presenting ideas without solid evidence, and yet you're doing exactly the same thing here to suit your own theories which also have no evidence going for them - how come it's good enough for you but not good enough for me, Monty?

Its not about harshness. Its about manpower. The bottom line is that Eddowes was deemed sober, and capable, by experience Officers who where there at the time. As opposed to an inexperienced Civvie who is 12,000 miles away and a 120 odd years too late in passing his own judgement.

Is there any "evidence" to suggest that Bishopsgate station was overflowing with criminals in the lock up on the night of September 29/30, and that even if they had desired to do so, there's no way they could have housed Kate until later in the morning?

OK, as Ive mentioned to your buddy Phil, it is not my wont to defend the Police. I, along with Rob, have exposed Watkins as an Officer who was caught having sex whilst on duty (shattering his enduring image as a good upright PC) and Hutt who beat up a prisoner whilst the man was in the dock. I have presented others as they are, warts and all, good and bad.

Nonsense. I have repeatedly seen you, over a long period of time, leap to the defence of the police. If you're not a police apologist then you are, at the very least, a police sympathiser. Nothing wrong with that particularly but you've still got to be able to have an objective view. It's like saying that your favourite author never wrote a bad book, or your favourite band never recorded a bad song - they probably did, you just don't want to accept it.

Let me finish by putting this simple "yes or no" question to you:

Will you state categorically that you believe that, given the circumstances which we are aware of, Catherine Eddowes was perfectly sober and in complete control of her faculties when released from Bishopsgate at 1 am on September 30?

If the answer is Yes, then the public have the alternative viewpoints and the evidence to support them at their disposal, and can draw their own conclusions, and we have nothing further worth discussing here.

If the answer is No, then you are also accepting my statement that Eddowes was not in a fit state - of mind, if not also of body - to be put in the position that she was that morning, aided by her premature release into the path of JTR by the Bishopsgate officers.

Mike:

Many thanks for that, very interesting!

It's certainly a shame that we don't know more - or anything really - about Kate's actions from the time of her release to the time of her sighting by Lawende.

Monty will have it that she planned her evening right down to the minute, but IMO it was little more than an unfortunate clash of time and place.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam

Certainly not ill considered, i've held the same view for some time and have stated similar in public in the past. It's simply that the column was a chance to present an alternate viewpoint in a more thorough manner - I knew it would rattle some cages, including yours, and that's part of the idea of it, it's not there to be a soft read for everyone.

Im only responding to drum up interest for your article. No one else seems to be that bothered, Im doing you a favour.

And that's the point, just because she was "deemed" sober doesn't mean that she was, and it's been made pretty clear I think that she could not have been. Surely you will admit that it's unlikely she had been allowed to carry on in the same vein she was discovered in for a particularly lengthy period of time beforehand? But it makes little difference, even if she had been in the same way for an hour, 2 hours or 3 hours, we're not playing with a matter of small degrees here, it's a pretty clear cut case really.

Not it hasn’t been made clear at all. All Ive seen is personal experienced married with a few Googlewhacks. Hardly the ascertaining as fact Eddowes could not have been sober enough to be released. Im not as easily influenced as you are.

I certainly do. Perhaps you can offer some words of wisdom, Casanova?

Yeah, wear a bag on yer head and keep your mouth closed.

As I said, because she was being virtually carried, Monty! She couldn't even stand up! Have another read through the descriptions of her when she was found in the street. She was pretty far gone....

Im not disputing she was pretty far gone, Im disputing your claim she was completely incapable of walking. You have her as a comatose drunk.

But you are presuming for a start that their inquest testimony is gospel, and I dispute that. As I said before and in the column, they had every reason, following news of her death and the fact she had been released from prison less than an hour beforehand, and with all and sundry in a rage at the inability of the police to capture the killer, to paint the events of that evening in a rather favourable light for themselves

.

Its inquest testimony, of course I do. You think anything can be said at inquest? The consequences are very severe if lies have been proven.

Even if Kate was still visibly drunk (and i'm not saying she was, only that she was still under the influence) and they decided she was well enough to make her way back onto the streets, then put yourself in their position - self preservation in crisis mode for themselves and the force as a whole comes into play.

I cant deny that, but that is pure conjecture and has no factual basis. My conjecture is alternate.

So it's your contention that she'd been hanging around outside, in the vicinity of a club, for 15-20 minutes without anybody else seeing her in the meantime? Or it's your contention that Jack was stupid enough to talk to her in the one spot for 15-20 minutes and risk being seen by more witnesses?

Just because there are no reports of a sighting, doesn’t mean she wasn’t seen. Again, you assume. You assess the limited information you have, process it with the limited ability of lateral thinking, and present it as the most likely.

You get on my case for presenting ideas without solid evidence, and yet you're doing exactly the same thing here to suit your own theories which also have no evidence going for them - how come it's good enough for you but not good enough for me, Monty?

No need to get nervy Adam. No, Im not presenting my own theories (another assumption). I am presenting an alternate view which you have either not considered or refused to consider. Your word isn’t Gospel, mine isn’t either, though Im not the one presenting a half cocked one sided theory.

Is there any "evidence" to suggest that Bishopsgate station was overflowing with criminals in the lock up on the night of September 29/30, and that even if they had desired to do so, there's no way they could have housed Kate until later in the morning?

On that particular night? Ive not seen it. I have seen it with regards other nights though. Have you seen any evidence to support your view? No, of course not. It’s a Saturday night, Sunday morning Adam….are you stating they wouldn’t have been busy?

Nonsense. I have repeatedly seen you, over a long period of time, leap to the defence of the police. If you're not a police apologist then you are, at the very least, a police sympathiser. Nothing wrong with that particularly but you've still got to be able to have an objective view. It's like saying that your favourite author never wrote a bad book, or your favourite band never recorded a bad song - they probably did, you just don't want to accept it.

You are welcome to your opinion, however the evidence is there to contradict in numerous posts and articles. You may claim my views are not objective, I frankly do not consider your opinion worthy enough as it is clear your research lacks, however I have pointed out both good and bad with regards the Police in my joint works with Rob. You may be too blinkered to see it, or maybe Phils updates to you aren’t entirely spot on, I don’t know, but as stated, you are entitled to your views, however erroneous they are

Let me finish by putting this simple "yes or no" question to you:

Only if its not a loaded question.

Will you state categorically that you believe that, given the circumstances which we are aware of, Catherine Eddowes was perfectly sober and in complete control of her faculties when released from Bishopsgate at 1 am on September 30?

Ah, it is a loaded question.

If the answer is Yes, then the public have the alternative viewpoints and the evidence to support them at their disposal, and can draw their own conclusions, and we have nothing further worth discussing here.

The public had that as soon as I engaged into the debate and not before. Until then they only had ‘Your opinion’.

If the answer is No, then you are also accepting my statement that Eddowes was not in a fit state - of mind, if not also of body - to be put in the position that she was that morning, aided by her premature release into the path of JTR by the Bishopsgate officers.

Well Duh !

Now which will I go for? Hmmmmmmm

Mike:

Yes many thanks for highlighting that Eddowes was able to transverse the distance only a few minutes behind a perfectly sober able person.

Cheers,
Monty

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Im only responding to drum up interest for your article. No one else seems to be that bothered, Im doing you a favour.

Whilst I appreciate your generosity, it's certainly not my wish for the humble column (i.e. not an article, Monty) to take any of the spotlight away from the other excellent contributions to NIR #1 - i'm quite happy being the background guy.

Not it hasn’t been made clear at all. All Ive seen is personal experienced married with a few Googlewhacks. Hardly the ascertaining as fact Eddowes could not have been sober enough to be released. Im not as easily influenced as you are.

You complained that there was no medical evidence. You have been presented with medical and scientific facts, combined with plenty of common sense, and yet it still hasn't been enough. I begin to wonder what it would take to convince you.

Yeah, wear a bag on yer head and keep your mouth closed.

Works for you, does it?

Im not disputing she was pretty far gone, Im disputing your claim she was completely incapable of walking. You have her as a comatose drunk.

She was all but passed out in a pool of her own vomit in the street, in a pretty bad way. Wouldn't the fact that she had to be assisted indicate that she was incapable of walking on her own?

Giving her name as "nothing" is also not something you would expect from somebody who is the very picture of sobriety.

Its inquest testimony, of course I do. You think anything can be said at inquest? The consequences are very severe if lies have been proven.

Of course there's consequences if lies are found, but if all those present are police officers, and they have their own arses to protect for the sake of their careers as well as the future of the force they work for, certain facts might be omitted or presented in a more favourable light is all i'm saying - and who's going to be able to prove otherwise? Another drunk in a cell? Well then it's the word of a street drunk who's probably in no good shape themselves, against that of police officers.

You're kidding yourself if you think that the inquest testimony from the JTR case is foolproof.

Just because there are no reports of a sighting, doesn’t mean she wasn’t seen. Again, you assume. You assess the limited information you have, process it with the limited ability of lateral thinking, and present it as the most likely.

Not at all, I analyse all outcomes but there is a saying, Monty, that if it makes sense, it's most likely the truth. We could make a whole lot of progress in this case if only we accepted what the most probable scenarios are and moved on, instead of clinging on to "What if's".

No need to get nervy Adam. No, Im not presenting my own theories (another assumption). I am presenting an alternate view which you have either not considered or refused to consider. Your word isn’t Gospel, mine isn’t either, though Im not the one presenting a half cocked one sided theory.

You're presenting alternate viewpoints while rubbishing mine into the bargain, yet, for instance, there's no more evidence to say that Kate was sober than to say she was drunk - if anything, there's more to suggest the latter. There's no evidence to suggest that she was planning a rendezvous in Mitre Square due to Morris's absence, which you've suggested.

On that particular night? Ive not seen it. I have seen it with regards other nights though. Have you seen any evidence to support your view? No, of course not. It’s a Saturday night, Sunday morning Adam….are you stating they wouldn’t have been busy?

Of course they would have been busier on a weekend than normal, that's a given in any period of history. But like you, i've seen nothing to suggest that Bishopsgate was in any way overcrowded on that particular night, and therefore, the argument that they had others coming in to take care of so Kate was deemed "good enough" to be out on the streets as she couldn't be kept there anymore, is not a valid one. Anyway, it's not like Bishopsgate was the only lock up in London.

Ah, it is a loaded question.

Come on Monty, don't muck around.....it's simple. You either agree or disagree with the points of the question, and therefore, the debate as a whole. Yay, or nay?

The public had that as soon as I engaged into the debate and not before. Until then they only had ‘Your opinion’.

Are you saying that the public is incapable of forming their own opinions without your assistance, Monty?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,

Whilst I appreciate your generosity, it's certainly not my wish for the humble column (i.e. not an article, Monty) to take any of the spotlight away from the other excellent contributions to NIR #1 - i'm quite happy being the background guy.

How noble.

You complained that there was no medical evidence. You have been presented with medical and scientific facts, combined with plenty of common sense, and yet it still hasn't been enough. I begin to wonder what it would take to convince you.

No, I have yet to be presented with medical facts. I have been presented with personal opinion and selected internet research.

Works for you, does it?

Where you’re concerned? Good grief yeah.

She was all but passed out in a pool of her own vomit in the street, in a pretty bad way. Wouldn't the fact that she had to be assisted indicate that she was incapable of walking on her own?

Giving her name as "nothing" is also not something you would expect from somebody who is the very picture of sobriety.

Again, embellishing a mistruth. This is how myths start Adam. She had been arrested and was being taken into custody. Do you seriously expect them to say make your own way? True, Simmonds assisted Robinson in taking her to Bishopsgate. I cant deny that, however looking at the time it took them to get there she wasn’t dragged as an incapable. And no Black Maria was called for.

Eddowes also had the wherewithall not to provide her real name. Initially, as you state, she gave her name as nothing. And then later a false one of Mary. That, to me, shows a degree of mental awareness despite her situation.

Of course there's consequences if lies are found, but if all those present are police officers, and they have their own arses to protect for the sake of their careers as well as the future of the force they work for, certain facts might be omitted or presented in a more favourable light is all i'm saying - and who's going to be able to prove otherwise? Another drunk in a cell? Well then it's the word of a street drunk who's probably in no good shape themselves, against that of police officers.

Conjecture, though in part I agree. However it takes just one to step out of the circle of lies and it crumbles. Part of the 1871 Police Instruction Book for new Candidates (which Hutt, Byfield, Robinson et al would have been aware of and most likely issued with) states clearly, on page 12, that –

“He (The Constable) is to speak the truth at all times and under all circumstances, and when called upon to give evidence to state all he knows respecting the case, without fear and reservation, and without and desire to influence the result either for or against the prisoner. To enable him to speak quite confidently, and to prevent the possibility of evidence being shaken, he is to provide himself with a pocket book and pencil, in which he can jot down times and dates and other particulars respecting accidents or other occurrences, and to which he can always refer.

Untruthfulness is the gravest disqualification for the Police Service”

Now that last paragraph was highlighted by the PC to whom this Instruction Book belonged to.

You're kidding yourself if you think that the inquest testimony from the JTR case is foolproof.

Really? No kidding? So the whole inquest testimony is fabrication?

The inquest, and police statements, must be taken as factual. It’s the basis of all legal proceedings. You have drawn question over the testimony of all the City PCs involved in the arrest, custody and release of Eddowes. Having read that testimony I see nothing contradicting.

As stated in the Instruction book, PCs completed what I use to call a QB50, that is a notebook. In it every significant event is recorded. I am confident, though obviously cannot prove, that a notebook was completed by various PCs concerned throughout that period. These notebooks can be produced at anytime upon request of a senior Officer, Magistrate or judge. PC Long was instructed to present his for example. If a note contracts testimony (for a note is also testimony) then there will be a massive reprimand or loss of job and possibly a legal move.

I wont lie and state your scenario didn’t happen on occasion. I just question of if they (the PCs involved) would really take such a risk in a case which would undoubtedly be under massive scrutiny both within and without the force.

Not at all, I analyse all outcomes but there is a saying, Monty, that if it makes sense, it's most likely the truth. We could make a whole lot of progress in this case if only we accepted what the most probable scenarios are and moved on, instead of clinging on to "What if's".

Yes, that well know saying, if it makes sense, its most likely the truth.

Please, you can do better than that. There are numerous scenarios in this particular case, and a fair few viable. You know it, I know it, and them out there know it….dont insult their intelligence.

You're presenting alternate viewpoints while rubbishing mine into the bargain, yet, for instance, there's no more evidence to say that Kate was sober than to say she was drunk - if anything, there's more to suggest the latter. There's no evidence to suggest that she was planning a rendezvous in Mitre Square due to Morris's absence, which you've suggested.

Yes there is more evidence to state she was sober enough to be released than held. Its there in testimony. You have stated probability based on your experience and the fact your did a Cub scout badge in First Aid.

I have not suggested anything of the sort, another Went falsity. I stated that Eddowes may have been aware of Morris’s movements and utilised them for her own requirements when with a client. I mentioned nothing about planned rendezvous at all. That is simply a lie.

Of course they would have been busier on a weekend than normal, that's a given in any period of history. But like you, i've seen nothing to suggest that Bishopsgate was in any way overcrowded on that particular night, and therefore, the argument that they had others coming in to take care of so Kate was deemed "good enough" to be out on the streets as she couldn't be kept there anymore, is not a valid one. Anyway, it's not like Bishopsgate was the only lock up in London.

Not a valid one? OK, here is yet another piece of Monty education for you. Bishopsgate is the only City Police Station next to the eastern border with Whitechapel. Its cells, from the evidence Ive seen regarding 1889 - 1897, were quite often full. Procedures were put in place to combat this. So yes, its an extremely valid one.

Come on Monty, don't muck around.....it's simple. You either agree or disagree with the points of the question, and therefore, the debate as a whole. Yay, or nay?

You demanding that I answer? For what point? It’s a loaded and biased question.

You stated a one sided case in your column, Ive provided an alternate argument. The yay or nay is for the individual to decided.

Are you saying that the public is incapable of forming their own opinions without your assistance, Monty?

Id rather the public had the full overview to form a decision on rather than the one sided bias you provided. Id sooner they have a balanced opinion. Don’t you?

Cheers
Monty

[Adam Went]

Monty:

No, I have yet to be presented with medical facts. I have been presented with personal opinion and selected internet research.

Alcohol doesn't simply 'disappear' from the system, the only thing that fixes it is time - that is a medical FACT.

You have been presented with facts, Monty, it's just that you simply refuse to accept that they are facts.

Where you’re concerned? Good grief yeah.

What the? Who says "good grief" these days!? I mean I know that the age clock ticks loudly for you, but i've never heard even my dear old grandmother say that.....

Again, embellishing a mistruth. This is how myths start Adam. She had been arrested and was being taken into custody. Do you seriously expect them to say make your own way? True, Simmonds assisted Robinson in taking her to Bishopsgate. I cant deny that, however looking at the time it took them to get there she wasn’t dragged as an incapable. And no Black Maria was called for.

Eddowes also had the wherewithall not to provide her real name. Initially, as you state, she gave her name as nothing. And then later a false one of Mary. That, to me, shows a degree of mental awareness despite her situation.

Read back through the descriptions of her when she was found on the street, the reports make it pretty clear that she was not in a good way and was heavily under the influence of alcohol. Of course they weren't going to tell her to make her own way there, but again, it's pretty clear that assistance was necessary in order to help her get there.

That she effectively passed out into a sleep after she arrived at the station would also be an indicator of heavy intoxication - all of the factors we are aware of from that evening indicate that.

And you think that calling herself Mary Ann Kelly is a great feat for a drunken person? Those names would easily be amongst the most commonplace in 1888! That would be the equivalent of you walking into a cop station and calling yourself John Smith....

Conjecture, though in part I agree. However it takes just one to step out of the circle of lies and it crumbles.

As i've previously said, I believe that overall the police did a commendable job and that they were truthful for the most part - however, extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures, and the JTR case and especially the Double Event was exactly that.

When faced with a dilemma where, if the full truth was revealed, it could threaten careers and even entire establishments (as if they weren't already under enough pressure), certain concessions must be made.

I DO NOT believe that they deliberately lied to any great extent, but that if they were aware that Kate was still under the influence and chose to disregard that at the time, that it would have been wise on their behalf to make as little of the fact as possible in the aftermath. Nothing more than that.

Really? No kidding? So the whole inquest testimony is fabrication?

That is a deliberate misinterpretation of what i've said, I have made it very clear several times exactly where I stand on the inquest testimony.

I'm simply saying that to believe that inquest testimony and statements are the complete truth, regardless of the situations they were faced with at the time, is unlikely.

Yes there is more evidence to state she was sober enough to be released than held. Its there in testimony. You have stated probability based on your experience and the fact your did a Cub scout badge in First Aid.

I have not suggested anything of the sort, another Went falsity. I stated that Eddowes may have been aware of Morris’s movements and utilised them for her own requirements when with a client. I mentioned nothing about planned rendezvous at all. That is simply a lie.

Ok, i'll say it AGAIN:
Just because Kate may have given the appearance of being sober does not mean that she WAS. There would, without a shadow of a doubt, still have been alcohol in her system after such a short period of time had elapsed, and that amount of alcohol, given her condition earlier that evening, may still have been enough to have impaired her judgement and made her more vulnerable. If the police had not been aware of her condition and the time that had elapsed, then it might be more forgiveable, but they were aware as she had been in the lock up since that time, and should have worked out for themselves that she was still not in a fit state to be released back onto the streets, ESPECIALLY at that period of time when the Jack the Ripper threat was very real, and ESPECIALLY with the knowledge of her situation and the likelihood that she would spend some time back on the streets. It was really just asking for trouble.

And I suggest you have a read back through the Casebook debates we've had if you believe i'm creating 'falsities' - you've created your own theories which are based in the first place on your assumption that Kate knew about Morris's absence from Mitre Square from 1-2 AM and she used that to her advantage, which is in no way, shape or form an established fact. That's just one example.

Not a valid one? OK, here is yet another piece of Monty education for you. Bishopsgate is the only City Police Station next to the eastern border with Whitechapel. Its cells, from the evidence Ive seen regarding 1889 - 1897, were quite often full. Procedures were put in place to combat this. So yes, its an extremely valid one.

You're preaching to the converted, mate.
None of that has any relevance at all to the circumstances in Bishopsgate on that particular night, so far as the amount of inmates there were and the various crimes they had committed and conditions they were in, and if and how this had any effect on Kate's release from there. As it stands, we agree that to our knowledge, there is nothing to suggest that this bore any influence.

Id rather the public had the full overview to form a decision on rather than the one sided bias you provided. Id sooner they have a balanced opinion. Don’t you?

Of course, but I have to be honest, I think you're starting to make yourself look a bit silly. Because based on what you've been saying thus far, the crux of your argument is this:

"I think your column was good, and its contents were a welcome change from the usual. I agree, at least partially, with some of your points. I can't deny that some of your other points could be plausible. I disagree with some of your other points, and even though I haven't got any actual real evidence to counter them with....you're still wrong. So i'll just throw in a few cheap shots instead."

Isn't that about right?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,

Out of respect for the day, Im not going to respond just now.

Regards
Monty

[Adam Went]

Good call Monty. Thinking of Liz and Kate today, R.I.P.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,



Respects paid, now what have you written? Oh dear, oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Alcohol doesn't simply 'disappear' from the system, the only thing that fixes it is time - that is a medical FACT.

You have been presented with facts, Monty, it's just that you simply refuse to accept that they are facts.

Sigh, I have been presented with figures based on Adam….not ascertained fact that medically Eddowes was too drunk to be released.

What the? Who says "good grief" these days!? I mean I know that the age clock ticks loudly for you, but i've never heard even my dear old grandmother say that.....

Ah, Im getting to you. I can read you like a book fella, and when you draw the age card its really a sign you have nothing left in the tank.

Read back through the descriptions of her when she was found on the street, the reports make it pretty clear that she was not in a good way and was heavily under the influence of alcohol. Of course they weren't going to tell her to make her own way there, but again, it's pretty clear that assistance was necessary in order to help her get there.

That she effectively passed out into a sleep after she arrived at the station would also be an indicator of heavy intoxication - all of the factors we are aware of from that evening indicate that.

And you think that calling herself Mary Ann Kelly is a great feat for a drunken person? Those names would easily be amongst the most commonplace in 1888! That would be the equivalent of you walking into a cop station and calling yourself John Smith....

You paint Eddowes as being incapable. The fact she didn’t reveal her name at any stage whilst in custody indicates she wasn’t as helpless as you portray.

As i've previously said, I believe that overall the police did a commendable job and that they were truthful for the most part - however, extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures, and the JTR case and especially the Double Event was exactly that.

When faced with a dilemma where, if the full truth was revealed, it could threaten careers and even entire establishments (as if they weren't already under enough pressure), certain concessions must be made.

I DO NOT believe that they deliberately lied to any great extent, but that if they were aware that Kate was still under the influence and chose to disregard that at the time, that it would have been wise on their behalf to make as little of the fact as possible in the aftermath. Nothing more than that.

So they subconsciously lied? Or just fibbed a little bit? Either way, its a massive no no in the force. One of the most heinous of crimes a Bobby could do. This in a case reported world wide.

That is a deliberate misinterpretation of what i've said, I have made it very clear several times exactly where I stand on the inquest testimony.

Believe me, if Ive misinterpreted so have others. Your stance on inquest testimony is that its sound when it suits you and your theories.

I'm simply saying that to believe that inquest testimony and statements are the complete truth, regardless of the situations they were faced with at the time, is unlikely.

No, inquest testimony is a truthful presentation of an individuals experience viewed by them. It may contain errors, as recollection or interpretation is faulty. However when you have two people stating Eddowes was sober enough to be released the conclusion favours one over the other.

Ok, i'll say it AGAIN:
Just because Kate may have given the appearance of being sober does not mean that she WAS. There would, without a shadow of a doubt, still have been alcohol in her system after such a short period of time had elapsed, and that amount of alcohol, given her condition earlier that evening, may still have been enough to have impaired her judgement and made her more vulnerable. If the police had not been aware of her condition and the time that had elapsed, then it might be more forgiveable, but they were aware as she had been in the lock up since that time, and should have worked out for themselves that she was still not in a fit state to be released back onto the streets, ESPECIALLY at that period of time when the Jack the Ripper threat was very real, and ESPECIALLY with the knowledge of her situation and the likelihood that she would spend some time back on the streets. It was really just asking for trouble.

Really, there is no need to repeat. I know your ramblings.

May have been enough to have impaired her judgement……MAY.

AGAIN – Byfield and Hutt were experienced Coppers who had processed many numerous drunks. They obviously deemed Eddowes sober enough to look after herself. Who the hell are you and I to cast aside that experience and testimony, and pass a critical view over a procedure we didn’t exactly experience? You have passed judgement without research or experience and fallen on the side of one conclusion.

And I suggest you have a read back through the Casebook debates we've had if you believe i'm creating 'falsities' - you've created your own theories which are based in the first place on your assumption that Kate knew about Morris's absence from Mitre Square from 1-2 AM and she used that to her advantage, which is in no way, shape or form an established fact. That's just one example.

Oh Adam, You have soooooo dropped the ball on this one. I suggest that you re read that thread and digest slowly what I said. I said it was theory that Eddowes may have utilised the square in Morris absence and accepted it was assumption based on sound logic, citing the evidence as I did so.

However, at no stage whatsoever, did I state she had planned a rendezvous there, as you claim I did say. That is an out and out lie (the falsity I refer to), one I was going to let slide however as you stand by it I shall call you out on it.

You're preaching to the converted, mate.

None of that has any relevance at all to the circumstances in Bishopsgate on that particular night, so far as the amount of inmates there were and the various crimes they had committed and conditions they were in, and if and how this had any effect on Kate's release from there. As it stands, we agree that to our knowledge, there is nothing to suggest that this bore any influence.

Ah, I see, supposition is fine when it supports your case. I have evidence which indicates that Bishopsgate, throughout certain periods from 1889 onwards, was a busy station with regards custody and that set procedures were in place to handle that. Are you stating that this information in invalid and prior to 1889 the status was quite different? That in 1888 things were far quieter than 1889 onwards?

Of course, but I have to be honest, I think you're starting to make yourself look a bit silly. Because based on what you've been saying thus far, the crux of your argument is this:

"I think your column was good, and its contents were a welcome change from the usual. I agree, at least partially, with some of your points. I can't deny that some of your other points could be plausible. I disagree with some of your other points, and even though I haven't got any actual real evidence to counter them with....you're still wrong. So i'll just throw in a few cheap shots instead."

Isn't that about right?

Adam, as stated, your opinion means little to me. Hopefully, as you mature, you will develop a better understanding of the Policing of the time, the social aspects and then come to the realisation that what you put in that column was indeed biased and unbalanced.

The evidence is placed for both cases. Nothing more to add. And with that, Im out.


Cheers,
Monty

[Adam Went]

Monty:

Sigh, I have been presented with figures based on Adam….not ascertained fact that medically Eddowes was too drunk to be released.

Figures which apply to the average human being. So unless you are capable of showing that Eddowes was some sort of superhuman who absorbed alcohol like a sponge, then the same figures can and must apply to her as well - the facts, the statistics and good old common sense will tell even the most wary of theorists that 4.5 - 5 hours is not long enough for the amount of alcohol that Kate must have drunk to be in the condition she was in to have completely left the system. And as long as it is in the system, it has some effect. You don't need a PHD to work that much out.

You paint Eddowes as being incapable. The fact she didn’t reveal her name at any stage whilst in custody indicates she wasn’t as helpless as you portray.

I paint her as being heavily intoxicated when taken into the custody of the police, and certainly NOT incapable when she was released, but still under the influence enough for it to have an adverse effect - there is a vast difference between what you'd like to think i'm saying and what I am actually saying.

Anyway, how does not giving her name indicate anything really? How is it any different from a sober person brought into the custody of the police answering their questions with "no comment"?

So they subconsciously lied? Or just fibbed a little bit? Either way, its a massive no no in the force. One of the most heinous of crimes a Bobby could do. This in a case reported world wide.

I'm saying that they may have slightly fibbed about the condition she was in when released, OR they were being honest and she was just disguising it well. Either way it should have been known that she would still have alcohol in her system and the likely course she would take when she left the station unaccompanied.

Believe me, if Ive misinterpreted so have others. Your stance on inquest testimony is that its sound when it suits you and your theories.

Can you please provide some examples of this?
I don't think i've hardly ever - if ever at all - used passages of inquest testimony for the benefit of one of my theories, certainly not intentionally anyway.

AGAIN – Byfield and Hutt were experienced Coppers who had processed many numerous drunks. They obviously deemed Eddowes sober enough to look after herself. Who the hell are you and I to cast aside that experience and testimony, and pass a critical view over a procedure we didn’t exactly experience? You have passed judgement without research or experience and fallen on the side of one conclusion.

Again, Tom, that's the beauty of an opinion column as opposed to an article. It is the beauty of hindsight as opposed to being there in person. The beauty of knowing all the facts rather than just some of them.

Surely you don't think that Byfield and Hutt wouldn't have turned the case over and over again in their minds after they heard of Kate's fate?

Oh Adam, You have soooooo dropped the ball on this one. I suggest that you re read that thread and digest slowly what I said. I said it was theory that Eddowes may have utilised the square in Morris absence and accepted it was assumption based on sound logic, citing the evidence as I did so.

However, at no stage whatsoever, did I state she had planned a rendezvous there, as you claim I did say. That is an out and out lie (the falsity I refer to), one I was going to let slide however as you stand by it I shall call you out on it.

We've already had this debate Monty. Perhaps rendezvous was the wrong phrase, but the point is that you believed that Kate may have been aware of Morris's absence from his post between that hour and that she may have used the Square for potential clients during that hour, and that is why she was there on the night she was killed - is that a fair representation?

I still think it's a ridiculous suggestion that a prostitute would take advantage of one place for one hour out of each week when it still had 3 different entrances and so was still not exactly a secret location.

Ah, I see, supposition is fine when it supports your case. I have evidence which indicates that Bishopsgate, throughout certain periods from 1889 onwards, was a busy station with regards custody and that set procedures were in place to handle that. Are you stating that this information in invalid and prior to 1889 the status was quite different? That in 1888 things were far quieter than 1889 onwards?

Again you're putting words in my mouth, i've never said that Bishopsgate wasn't busy at various times - what i'm saying is that there's no evidence that on the night Kate was released from there, that is was particularly overcrowded, certainly not more than the usual.

The night Kate was killed was a miserable one, and many were keeping off the streets at night in fear of JTR during that time, so it may well have actually been quieter than you might expect.

Adam, as stated, your opinion means little to me. Hopefully, as you mature, you will develop a better understanding of the Policing of the time, the social aspects and then come to the realisation that what you put in that column was indeed biased and unbalanced.

To be fair, you're still the only one who has said so thus far. It's an opinion column and it's put out there to create food for thought, so whether or not you agree with it is somewhat irrelevant to me.

Perhaps column #2 will suit you better...

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

As stated, I've nothing more to add apart from this.

I'm Monty, not Tom. You should really proof read before sending. That way you'd have avoided insulting Mr Wescott.

Monty