Did The Victims Carry Weapons?

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"In addition to this the hapless women of the streets are themselves armed with knives, and two poor creatures this morning showed a reporter two formidable bowie-knives, which they would unquestionably use upon any man who attempted violence of a deadly character.
Evening News, 14 Sept. 1888.

Another woman, in reply to a similar question, said, "Afraid? No, I'm armed, Look 'ere," and she drew a knife from her pocket. She further declared, "I'm not the only one armed; there's plenty more carry knives now."
North Eastern Daily Gazette, 3 Oct. 1888.

Some Unfortunates did carry vicious weapons, maybe Tabram had carried one. Equally then, this maybe the source of the 'dagger' which was used on her?"

Nice finds, Jon! The snag, though, is that as these women spoke to the press of their arms, we had moved into the Ripper scare era that was not there as Tabram was killed. But of course, since the occupation came with risks then as now, knives and other weapons may of course have been carried before too. And the press would not have written about it then, methinks!

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

The snag, though, is that as these women spoke to the press of their arms, we had moved into the Ripper scare era that was not there as Tabram was killed. But of course, since the occupation came with risks then as now, knives and other weapons may of course have been carried before too. And the press would not have written about it then, methinks!

Good observation, if I may.

[Bridewell]

About carrying weapons: Maybe the victims did - and Jack took them away with him!
He was rummaging their pockets, and we don't know what he took away, as it didn't appear in the lists of belongings made at the post mortems.

Hi K,

That's what I was thinking. It seems strange that there were these women telling the press that they carried weapons, that many prostitutes do carry weapons, and yet (apart from the kitchen knife & spoon with Eddowes) no such item is recorded among the possessions of the various victims. I would have expected some kind of blade, however old & rusty, either tucked into a boot or concealed in a sleeve.

Regards, Bridewell

[bolo]

Hi all,

I think trying to determine wether the victims carried weapons or not is a waste of time. If they did, it obviously did not help them at all.

Being able to defend yourself is not a matter of the right weapon but the right mindset. If you haven't learned (either by experience or training) how to switch to survival/defense mode without thinking twice, even the most powerful weapon in your hands will be useless.

Regards,

Boris

[Errata]

I've carried any number of knives on my person, from day to day to working at renaissance festivals. I even once sheathed a 32 inch sword down my bodice. And I'll be damned if I can figure out where you can stick a bowie knife that it would be both concealed and available at times of need.

[bolo]

Hi Errata,

I've carried any number of knives on my person, from day to day to working at renaissance festivals. I even once sheathed a 32 inch sword down my bodice. And I'll be damned if I can figure out where you can stick a bowie knife that it would be both concealed and available at times of need.

knowing where to stick a knife is not enough, you also have to be ready and able to use it. Normal people have no trained or acquired reflexes to use a weapon in a life-or-death situation, especially when they are on the defensive, i. e. faced with a situation where they get attacked by an armed offender without having their weapon ready. I bet 90% of us wouldn't know what to do in this case, and so did the Ripper victims should they have carried weapons on their person (which I doubt).

Regards,

Boris

[Bridewell]

Good Point

Hi Errata,



knowing where to stick a knife is not enough, you also have to be ready and able to use it. Normal people have no trained or acquired reflexes to use a weapon in a life-or-death situation, especially when they are on the defensive, i. e. faced with a situation where they get attacked by an armed offender without having their weapon ready. I bet 90% of us wouldn't know what to do in this case, and so did the Ripper victims should they have carried weapons on their person (which I doubt).

Regards,

Boris

Hi Bolo,

You make a good point, but the lack of ability or mind-set to use a knife effectively, does not mean that there would be no motive for carrying one. When her house was burgled, my elderly mother proposed to keep a garden fork in her bedroom to defend herself with. I pointed out that she would never use it, but an intruder might, and she very sensibly changed her mind. The fact remains that my poor old mum, who could never have used such a weapon, against anyone, in any circumstances, had still proposed to keep one handy. I merely wonder why the Ripper victims appear not to have made a similar decision in the face of a very real threat.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

What makes you conclude that Tabram might have carried a knife Wickerman?

Maria.
To suggest, "maybe Tabram carried a knife", is not drawing a conclusion.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

...But of course, since the occupation came with risks then as now, knives and other weapons may of course have been carried before too. And the press would not have written about it then, methinks!

Bravo! precisely so Fisherman.
Prostitutes were oppressed by street gangs as purely part of their choice of occupation, and such stories were not newsworthy before the Ripper scare.

I'm glad you came to the same conclusion Christer.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

You make a good point, but the lack of ability or mind-set to use a knife effectively, does not mean that there would be no motive for carrying one.

Exactly Bridewell.
These poor women are not about to debate the logic of carrying a weapon when they are repeatedly beaten and mistreated by any number of ruffians, and the odd client.
People who are desperate do not consider the practicalities, if it makes them feel secure, so be it!

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,



knowing where to stick a knife is not enough, you also have to be ready and able to use it. Normal people have no trained or acquired reflexes to use a weapon in a life-or-death situation, especially when they are on the defensive, i. e. faced with a situation where they get attacked by an armed offender without having their weapon ready. I bet 90% of us wouldn't know what to do in this case, and so did the Ripper victims should they have carried weapons on their person (which I doubt).

Regards,

Boris

Good points all, but what I was actually saying is that I have no idea where I would store a bowie knife on my person. It's too wide for boot or cleavage, too heavy for thigh, and the waist is right out what with all the bending and the wearing of dresses.

[bolo]

Good points all, but what I was actually saying is that I have no idea where I would store a bowie knife on my person. It's too wide for boot or cleavage, too heavy for thigh, and the waist is right out what with all the bending and the wearing of dresses.

Ah, I see, sorry for the confusion. You could wear in a shoulder holster beneath one of your armpits or tape it on your back between the scapulae (some special unit guys do just that) but of course that wouldn't be feasible with most types of modern clothing, let alone typical 19th century gear. If you want to go for a dramatic effect, hold it between your teeth...

Oh, and may I recommend a good-quality switchblade knife for your purpose of easy concealment and drawing.

Regards,

Boris

[Errata]

Ah, I see, sorry for the confusion. You could wear in a shoulder holster beneath one of your armpits or tape it on your back between the scapulae (some special unit guys do just that) but of course that wouldn't be feasible with most types of modern clothing, let alone typical 19th century gear. If you want to go for a dramatic effect, hold it between your teeth...

Oh, and may I recommend a good-quality switchblade knife for your purpose of easy concealment and drawing.

Regards,

Boris

Yeah, but in this article it talks about these prostitutes showing off these big bowie knives. Now I've spent some time in Victorian clothing, and there just isn't a place to stash a bowie knife where it would be concealed, and where you could get to it. A table knife, sure. Most daggers, fine. Stilettos, no problem. Bowie knife almost as wide as my hand... no.

I think that either a: the article is pure fiction b: they weren't bowie knives, or anything like bowie knives c: these women didn't carry the knives with them or d: they weren't street walkers and they were stashing the knives in their rooms in a brothel.

Which would mean that the article applied to street walkers and their habits not in the slightest.

[bolo]

Hi Errata,

I think that either a: the article is pure fiction b: they weren't bowie knives, or anything like bowie knives c: these women didn't carry the knives with them or d: they weren't street walkers and they were stashing the knives in their rooms in a brothel.

Which would mean that the article applied to street walkers and their habits not in the slightest.

yeah, I think the Bowie knives story holds no water. As you already mentioned, real Bowies are quite large, as we can see in this well-known picture of "Wild" Bill Hickok:



There are smaller versions as well that have a blade length of about 6 inches but even those would be difficult to conceal for a 19th century woman.

That's why I go with a combination of a) and d). Maybe the jourmalist responsible for the article indeed did interview some East End women with knives and then simply added a bit of colour to the story to make it more interesting. "Formidable bowie knives" sounds much cooler than, say, "table knives stolen from a doss house kitchen", after all.

Regards,

Boris

[caz]

And of course, such claims could have been aimed at making the killer think twice - or anyone else for that matter who thought these women were fair game.

Love,

Caz
X