Did The Victims Carry Weapons?

[Wickerman]

Hmmm, and I was hoping I had missed a few details. In my suspicion, Tabram (who was more sturdy than the C5) might have pulled up a fight, resulting in the multiple, "disorganized" stabbing. In which case the neighbors at George's Yard might have lied about not having heard anything. I assume that the Ripper learned to go immediately for the jugular from his experience with Tabram.
Conjecture, of course, but it makes sense.

Point of trivia..
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!"

Yes, its a shame Killeen's report has not survived, it could have answered so many questions.

Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

Good question, sadly, we have no details of bruises, or minor cuts on the arms (if any) given in the papers, they only concern themselves with the stab wounds.

Hmmm, and I was hoping I had missed a few details. In my suspicion, Tabram (who was more sturdy than the C5) might have pulled up a fight, resulting in the multiple, "disorganized" stabbing. In which case the neighbors at George's Yard might have lied about not having heard anything. I assume that the Ripper learned to go immediately for the jugular from his experience with Tabram.
Conjecture, of course, but it makes sense.

[mariab]

Back then these women were just supposed to turn around and present a ahh target. No talking no faking no looking at each other.

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.

Which makes self defense highly problematic. if you are bent over with your back to someone, what weapon precisely is going to get a john to back off? {...} a knife could be very effective if they were able to reach between their own legs and threaten the john where it hurts so to speak, possibly one upping even a john with a knife to your throat...but they were wearing about 50 yards of skirts, so that's out.

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.

[Wickerman]

Being too busy with Berner Street and my own work, I haven't managed to check yet: Did Tabram spot defensive injuries on her arms? Wickerman?

Good question, sadly, we have no details of bruises, or minor cuts on the arms (if any) given in the papers, they only concern themselves with the stab wounds.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

As odd as this sounds, men want their modern prostitutes more engaged now. For example, prostitutes are expected to fake orgasms now, engage in more intimate acts, face their customer, etc.

Back then these women were just supposed to turn around and present a ahh target. No talking no faking no looking at each other.

Which makes self defense highly problematic. if you are bent over with your back to someone, what weapon precisely is going to get a john to back off? No one had guns, and a knife could be very effective if they were able to reach between their own legs and threaten the john where it hurts so to speak, possibly one upping even a john with a knife to your throat... but they were wearing about 50 yards of skirts, so that's out. The average Victorian hooker was left as helpless as a turtle on it's back by simple positioning.

I mean, nowadays a prostitute spends most of her time in a car or kneeling on her own purse, so there's no reason NOT to have a weapon. Back then, the only reason to have a weapon is if you were afraid of getting attacked on the way home. But they wouldn't have been able to use it while working.

[mariab]

prostitutes {...} In my experience, unless a pimp is in close attendance, they routinely carry a weapon of some sort, against the ever-present risk of attack.

It was probably safer for them to just take a beating rather than try to defend themselves with something that could be taken from them and used against them.

In the US I've seen streetwalkers carrying rope on themselves along with possibly a pocket knife (when driving by, not cruising by, I hasten to add!). But we can't really compare Victorian social sensibilities with today. Self defense's very much a mental state as well, apart from carrying a weapon. If willing, even a pair of keys can be used with devastating effects. The operative word being "willing". There are newspaper reports mentioning Whitechapel women carrying knifes on them during the "autumn of terror". But the C5 were in their majority old and meek, even inside of the Whitechapel realm. Probably chosen presicely for this "quality" by their killer.

Being too busy with Berner Street and my own work, I haven't managed to check yet: Did Tabram spot defensive injuries on her arms? Wickerman?

[Wickerman]

Anything worthy of being considered a weapon would cost money, money they didn't have.
A sharp table-knife, or hat-pin? possibly, but if any of them carried something for self defence it wouldn't amount to much value-wise.

It was probably safer for them to just take a beating rather than try to defend themselves with something that could be taken from them and used against them.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Mea Culpa

Hi Bridewell

I think Eddowes had a table knife - whether it was sharp I don't know.

Apologies. Yes. "1 White handled table knife and 1 metal tea spoon".

[Robert]

Hi Bridewell

I think Eddowes had a table knife - whether it was sharp I don't know.

[Bridewell]

I have had many encounters, in a professional capacity (mine, not theirs, I hasten to add!) with prostitutes, over the years. In my experience, unless a pimp is in close attendance, they routinely carry a weapon of some sort, against the ever-present risk of attack.
In 1888, in the East End of London, and when a known killer of prostitutes was on the loose, I would expect to find that every such 'brass' working the streets anywhere near Spitalfields and Whitechapel would be armed with something and yet, according to the surviving records, none of them was carrying anything which might be used, as a last resort, in self-defence.
Did they really not carry weapons of any kind?
If not, why not? (A rusty old kitchen knife would do surely?)
If they did, what happened to them?