Did The Victims Carry Weapons?

[Errata]

I'm almost tempted to say, you need to get out more Errata. ;-)

No, I get the presumed posture required, but that still takes strength. Which isn't always there, and I gotta tell you I have a hard time picturing a woman the size of Annie Chapman in a frontal piggy back ride with some guy supporting her weight fully and you know what? Never mind. There are some things you can't unsee, and most of them just flashed through my head. I surrender.

[mariab]

I'm almost tempted to say, you need to get out more Errata. ;-)

[Errata]

A fence bounces. (At least a Victorian one does.)

okay...now that I have this REALLY unfortunate image in my head, how does that resolve the height difference?

[Robert]

Hi Debs

Polly was very stupid to steal the clothes and go back on the booze and the streets, but I can sort of see what was going on in her mind - position of domestic servant and, er, that's it - "like crawling up a drainpipe till you die" was I think how one of HG Wells's characters described it.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs

I assume that the meaning of "lost sight of" is that while Polly was working as a domestic servant, the Guardian maybe visited her once in a while to keep her on the straight and narrow, and the Guardian attributes Polly's relapse to the Guardian's absence?

Hi Robert,
It's the same old story isn't it? Workhouse Guardian/Temperance Society worker/Salvation Army member/Preacher at Millbank/City Missionary...all on the verge of saving these women but just turned their back for a moment?

[mariab]

A fence bounces. (At least a Victorian one does.)

[Errata]

Fences. Jane Coram has talked about this.

Fences? Clearly this is discussion I missed. If you could give me a rough outline I would appreciate it, since at the moment I can't tell how a fence would be more helpful than a wall.

[mariab]

Wow, fascinating and somehow ironic about Nichols favoring knives in earlier life.

Other positions, especially face to face, typically require props

Fences. Jane Coram has talked about this.

I've always suspected Nasser knew more about these murders, maybe even coaching De Salvo in many of the details. I did read somewhere that George Nasser was picked out of an ID line-up by a witness in the Strangler murders.
Yes, I would not be surprised if F. Lee Bailey did not also play a role in this whole affair, this was his ticket to fame. Anyway, not to digress...

As a really quick digress, that's precisely what I've read about Nasser, and it appears that F. Lee Bailey was in haste to "establish" De Salvo as the Strangler. Still, (and as in Ripperology) different books on the case present different angles.

[Wickerman]

Funny you mention this, as I've been talking about this case last week with some friends. As far as I recall, there were 2 stabbed victims, one old, also strangled, one young, only stabbed. By the by and as a short highjack Wickerman, who do you think commited these murders, De Salvo or Nassar? I would trust F. L. Bailey about as far as...he could throw me? :-) Look what he did in the OJ Simpson case.

Hi Maria, well I understood De Salvo was the Green Man burglar, but the Green Man was not a killer. I've always suspected Nasser knew more about these murders, maybe even coaching De Salvo in many of the details.
I did read somewhere that George Nasser was picked out of an ID line-up by a witness in the Strangler murders.

Yes, I would not be surprised if F. Lee Bailey did not also play a role in this whole affair, this was his ticket to fame.

Anyway, not to digress...

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

I'm aware of the various theories as to how, physically, Victorian street-walkers conducted their business. Can we be sure that penetration from the rear was invariably the "line of attack", so to speak?
There is nothing to stop a prostitute from saying, "Yes, I will, dearie, but not from behind until they catch Leather Apron. You can't be too careful these days".

Yes, they were desperate, but they were also streetwise, surely?

Other positions, especially face to face typically require props, lying down, or a fairly strong male. Women are typically shorter than men, and lining up vertical slot with a horizontal tab is not easy. She would have to perch on something to make up the height difference, they would have to roll around on the ground, or he would have to hold her off the ground in place. And while all are possible, the first and third cannot be guaranteed, and the second ruins your clothes, and they clearly didn't have a lot of cash to spend in that area. From behind works because it can be done anywhere by anyone, no props or physical fitness required.

[Bridewell]

I'm aware of the various theories as to how, physically, Victorian street-walkers conducted their business. Can we be sure that penetration from the rear was invariably the "line of attack", so to speak?
There is nothing to stop a prostitute from saying, "Yes, I will, dearie, but not from behind until they catch Leather Apron. You can't be too careful these days".

Yes, they were desperate, but they were also streetwise, surely?

[Errata]

Not at all Errata, high quality prostitutes in both Paris and London were expected to give "the GF experience" (though it wasn't called like that at the time), they even lived with a man (at a separate house or villa) for years.

Well yes, the whole courtesan thing. But the women in the alleys of Whitechapel were not courtesans, and that was to whom I was referring.

Are you kidding? A knife hid inside boots or stockings or skirts can be pulled out easily if one's experienced. Then insert, twist, and cut some flesh decisively, and you've got a distracted to incapacitated assailant and a window of opportunity to finish him off or flee. ;-) But I doubt that many women were mentally capable of doing this in the Victorian era. Giving a shiner to another woman or breaking a bottle on someone's head, yes. Armed fighting, nah.

The viability of any defense is based largely on the point at which you realize you are in trouble. If you realize it before commencing the act, you're good, as you are standing and facing them. If your back is to them and you are bent over, you have a real problem. You can't see them prepare to attack you. Which means that you find out that you are in trouble when you are attacked. Now theres basically three ways this could go down (theres more, but this is a good representation). Sine we are talking about the fear of being murdered, a prostitute could a: find hands wrapped around her throat b:find a cord wrapped around her throat, or c: find a knife at her throat. Since we are talking about the fear of Jack the Ripper, who the women in question would know as a knife killer, we can settle on a fear of a knife at their throat. So the the question becomes, what can you you do to a man who is behind you with a knife to your throat that would make him let you go, without cutting your throat? Yes, you could reach back nd stab him in the calf with a table knife, but is that going to make him let you go, or is that going to make him cut your throat and then tend to his wound? Likely the latter. The only way to get him to let you go is to either his him someplace vital, so that he HAS to drop the knife, or threaten or hit him someplace that make killing you no longer worth the risk. Given the positioning, there is no place vital to hit him without seriously risking driving his knife into your own throat. So that's out. The reaching between the legs scenario and threatening his bits would likely work on any attacker other than Jack the Ripper. But the skirts are in the way. So no go there anyway.

They could fight back. And they should. But they can't defend themselves. They can't drive him off, they can't stop the attack. Not the kind of attack they were afraid of. Now if they were afraid of robbery, sure a jab to the leg would probably convince a guy that the money wasn't worth it. But driving off someone who wants to hurt you is a different beast. That takes knowing someone is going to try to hurt you BEFORE they hurt you. And that cannot be accomplished with their back turned.

[Robert]

Hi Debs

I assume that the meaning of "lost sight of" is that while Polly was working as a domestic servant, the Guardian maybe visited her once in a while to keep her on the straight and narrow, and the Guardian attributes Polly's relapse to the Guardian's absence?

[Debra A]

According to this article one of the victims had previously been handy with a knife, although in this snippet she was the one committing a violent attack, rather than using it in self-defence.

'Workhouse interiors by a poor law guardian' The Woman's Signal Thursday, September 27, 1894; pg. 197

[mariab]

short highjacking

Do you remember the Boston Strangler murders?, its been a while since I read them but, I think it was his second victim where he used the knife. She was stabbed numerous times (like Tabram?), in a frienzy. The only one where the MO differed. His reason given was "that she wouldn't shut up!"

Funny you mention this, as I've been talking about this case last week with some friends. As far as I recall, there were 2 stabbed victims, one old, also strangled, one young, only stabbed. By the by and as a short highjack Wickerman, who do you think commited these murders, De Salvo or Nassar? I would trust F. L. Bailey about as far as...he could throw me? :-) Look what he did in the OJ Simpson case.