General Questions Not Yet Answered

[perrymason]

I think John raises a good point earlier when he mentioned about John Kellys reflections on his life with Kate....which is in essence all that we have to get some idea of how they were together and what their life was like. The way he paints it they were in bed together most nights before midnight.....thats not the traditional life of an Unfortunate in that area at that time. I read once that there were no verfiable instances when we know that Kate was talking with or engaged by a client for the purposes of solicitation....yet as John points out, somehow she drinks herself fire-engine red in the face without money.

Think of his story about the pawning, and the pawn ticket date. Think about his not seeking out Kate the very next day. Think about the fact that for all we know he may have had her out on the streets making money for the 2 of them. Think of Kates left hand turn out of jail.

Its hard to imagine that she was not a prostitute at least some of the time, but its hard to prove that she was one too.

All the best.

[belinda]

I wish people would stop talking about "prostitutes". We're mainly talking about superannuated casual prostitutes - not young professional hookers - for whom prostitution wasn't the only means of getting a little bit of money. They were just as likely to have begged, accepted a charitable donation, sold trinkets for a few coppers, as they were to have sold sexual services.

The obsession with "prostitution" - created and fed by some books and most of the visual media over the years, and exacerbated by modern perceptions of the sex trade - is a major stumbling block that we must get over if we are to understand the social dynamics of the Victorian slums.

This is exactly my point.

There was no Welfare State in 1888

[Nell Lance]

I've re-read the victim reports in the past couple days. According to the police records, the victims were picked up as drunk. It may have been standard police procedure to book the women as "prostitutes" because nothing of their circumstances were known. According to the victims themselves they spent money on alcohol. It could have been because the victims were destitute they didn't have the money to spend on food so they drank. At least some of the C5 didn't have the money to pay for a bed. And it's possible they spent nights drinking with their pick-ups and not engaged in any sex act. From what I understand of the history, many people were caught in a vicious cycle of drink and poverty.
And many were victims of abuse and gang violence.

Nell Lance

[karensa]

Not sure what the law would be back in the day and whether or not this would've been something considered prostitution, so toss it on the table anyway - it's a widely known secret of Woman that we don't necessarily need any money to get drinks - we have other assets that, when properly and strategically asserted, tend to inspire the male persuasion to produce all the alcohol we can drink down...due to the widely known brain malfunction that makes most males presume that if we're intoxicated enough we're easier to get in the sack...or wherever.

So could the solicitation have been more for alcohol in trade for sexual acts, if they considered "that counts" - and that's why they were drunk, and they weren't actually "on duty" or actively working. I agree with those who have suggested that it's an assumption that these women were actively engaged in prostitution and JtR was pretending to be a john so facilitate the attacks...and there could be any number of interactions between them that didn't have anything to do with hooking.

I'm a bartender...but to presume that any time I pour a shot of something, I'm on the job, is a stretch.

Maybe they were just out partying or looking to socialize or walking or whatever and encountered him in some other circumstance?

[lynn cates]

Polly and Annie

Hello Karen. Well, we have good evidence that Polly and Annie were soliciting. Not such good evidence for the last 3.

The best.
LC