What 5 Questions Would You Like Answered?

[DVV]

I agree. Broad Shoulders are hard to swallow.

[C. F. Leon]

The names in bold were soliciting as I stated David, but there are plenty of possible answers for your questions about Kate, and Liz, that do not include solicitation...based solely on the evidence. Remember....the police speculated early that they thought Kate may have been at a pre-set meeting, not trawling for strangers,...and the physical and circumstantial evidence in the Stride case does not portray a woman actively soliciting right up until the last legitimized sighting of her...at 12:35am, by PC Smith.

If we assume that by being on the streets at night all single woman must have been prostituting themselves, then why dont we have any Ripper victims who were out at night but had no known history of solicitation? How would a killer know who was soliciting and who was merely homeless...or just on their way to somewhere? How is it that all the victims had at some point at least been casual or full time prostitutes? Isnt that their connective thread? Isnt that an element of the killers profile....that he supposedly chooses women actively seeking clients?

I believe its that supposed connective thread that has allowed these ill-fitting individual murders to be grouped together. Since they all had that element in their background at some point, it must have been a part of the killers victim selection process.

Perhaps, IF one man killed them all. In truth though, many, many women in the East End at that time had similar backgrounds, ...had one man killed any 5 women out at night they would have likely have had that "Unfortunate experience" in common. So this unique connective "thread" within the Group is nothing of the sort...it could have connected any number of women in that area at the time. Including women, who in the Fall of 1888, did not want or need to resort to solicitation. In other words....if someone killed any 5 women out at night alone in the relevant time period youll likely find some trace of "Unfortunate" behavior in their past to "connect" them, but that doesnt mean that they all would have actively been so engaged.

In these cases, we only know that 2 were when they meet their killer. The assumptions about the rest are just that, and its reasonable to speculate that the man that killed Polly and Annie specifically sought out women who were actively soliciting.

Hope that makes sense to you....

Cheers

But to be honest, by all accounts Kelly was also hooking at the time- the only question is if she had quit for the night and gone to sleep. If you accept Nichols, you have to accept Kelly- the same reasoning applies to both. There is a reasonable question about Eddowes- but she had gotten drunk SOMEHOW earlier and that required money. The only one (of the McN 5- Tabram is definitely on the game that night) that you could really make a case for NOT soliciting at the time of her murder (or shortly before) is Stride, and frankly that's just reasonable doubt. So, the actual count is: 2 probably hooking at the time (Nichols, Chapman), 2 probably but not proved (Eddowes, Kelly), and one reasonable doubt (Stride). (Frankly, you could argue either way for any of them, non-McN 5 included.)

The actual LEGAL case of course is different: I was on a jury once for a prostitution case and according to the evidence, there was NO question that she was a prostitute: the question we had to decide on was whether she was soliciting at that time or just asking for a ride (from an undercover cop). We decided based on her usual routine and what the cop actually reported there was no sexual request made, and that she just wanted to get home out of the rain at that hour. Reasonable doubt. [Again, I'm not an expert on LVP jury instruction.]

[DVV]

But to be honest, by all accounts Kelly was also hooking at the time- the only question is if she had quit for the night and gone to sleep. There is a reasonable question about Eddowes- but she had gotten drunk SOMEHOW earlier and that required money. The only one (of the McN 5- Tabram is definitely on the game that night) that you could really make a case for NOT soliciting at the time of her murder (or shortly before) is Stride, and frankly that's just reasonable doubt.

I was on a jury once for a prostitution case and according to the evidence, there was NO question that she was a prostitute: the question we had to decide on was whether she was soliciting at that time or just asking for a ride (from an undercover cop). We decided based on her usual routine and what the cop actually reported there was no sexual request made, and that she just wanted to get home out of the rain at that hour. Reasonable doubt. [Again, I'm not an expert on LVP jury instruction.]

Agreed. Excellent post.
Stride was in Berner Street at night. (I'm fed up to point out the reputation of Berner Street.)
I'm also tired of those who ask : "show your evidence that she was soliciting!" (I don't think of Mike here, rather Lynn).

What a stupid challenge.

When women are soliciting, they don't register : "I, the undersigned bLiz Stride, will solicit tonight in Berner Street until I get my throat cut..."

Mouarff... Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Dave,

How do I propose to solve the mystery at this distance in time?

By refusing to believe all the BS we've swallowed over the past 125 years.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon...thought that might be the nature of your answer...and of course actually you're quite right - go ahead and disbelieve all the BS you like and I'm sure it'll get you there in the end!

Every good wish

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

Thank you very much.

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

Casual prostitutes killed on the streets at night... ?
And we don't have the proof they were soliciting ?
Very well, but then, it's rather your job to prove they were not.
What was Nichols doing ?
And Chapman ?
Why didn't Eddowes come back straight to her lodging ?
And wasn't Berner Street famous for its "actively soliciting" prostitutes ?
The case of MJK, I concede, is more problematic: she's been killed in bed. Perhaps while actively sleeping.

Cheers Mike

That sounds like you are saying any woman killed on the streets must have been a prostitute? What, was it divine retribution?

Also, victimology is useful, but it can end up in question begging-- that is, JtR, killed prostitutes, and therefore all the women killed by him were prostitutes.

We know Polly Nichols was soliciting, and we are pretty sure Annie Chapman was, so we theorize that JtR targeted prostitutes. That's useful in that it tells us where to look for him, but it doesn't mean that every victim to follow will absolutely and with no doubt be a prostitute. We don't know what it was about Nichols and Chapman soliciting that brought them into contact with JtR. It may have been that women alone didn't speak to strangers, and so prostitutes were easy, or it may have been that he was some kind of sex police. But in the latter case, the women don't need to actually be prostitutes; the killer needs only to perceive them as such.

[DVV]

That sounds like you are saying any woman killed on the streets must have been a prostitute? What, was it divine retribution?

Yeah, especially when there is a car accident.
It works for dogs also.
Soliciting dogs !

Now please, open your window and go get some fresh air.

[lynn cates]

21 st c logic

Hello David. Thanks.

"Be patient, Lynn. I'm currently working on maps.
I'll soon produce new evidence that Whitechapel was in London."

From which, it follows that Liz and Kate were prostitutes? Got it.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Nàni.
You think you got it, at best.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

Q & A

Hello (again) David.

"Very well, but then, it's rather your job to prove they were not."

Ah, guilty until proven innocent?

"What was Nichols doing?"

Well, she talked as if she were soliciting. No reason to doubt her.

"And Chapman?"

Same. If she is to be believed.

"Why didn't Eddowes come back straight to her lodging?"

I presume she went to finish business with the chap who bought her drinks.

"And wasn't Berner Street famous for its "actively soliciting" prostitutes?"

Most certainly not.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

"Very well, but then, it's rather your job to prove they were not."

Ah, guilty until proven innocent?

Frivole. Believe it or not, but in the field you're posting, at a rate of 20 posts per day, everybody knows all C5 were at least casual prostitutes. So yes, do your job.

"What was Nichols doing?"

Well, she talked as if she were soliciting. No reason to doubt her.

"And Chapman?"

Same. If she is to be believed.

Alleluiah. The two victims of the mad pork butcher are innocent of non-soliciting.

"Why didn't Eddowes come back straight to her lodging?"

I presume she went to finish business with the chap who bought her drinks.

Waow. You know a lot. Who was he ? They had a date, although not knowing at what time she would be released ?

"And wasn't Berner Street famous for its "actively soliciting" prostitutes?"

Most certainly not.

Ah. "Most certainly not." I presume you can produce evidence that Berner Street was not frequented by prostitutes. If not, I can produce one that says it was.

Hope it helps.

Cheers.

[lynn cates]

invisible

Hello (yet again) David. Thanks.

"When women are soliciting, they don't register : "I, the undersigned bLiz Stride, will solicit tonight in Berner Street until I get my throat cut...""

But for evidence we need money, semen, a statement.

Ah, almost forgot, invisible money, and invisible semen.

Got it.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Nope.
For counter-evidence you need something.
You have nothing.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

go for it

Hello (once more) David. Thanks.

"everybody knows all C5 were at least casual prostitutes. So yes, do your job."

My job is first to figure out what happened.

"The two victims of the mad pork butcher are innocent of non-soliciting."

If they told the truth, of course.

"You know a lot."

I said PRESUME.

"I presume you can produce evidence that Berner Street was not frequented by prostitutes."

Only the club member statements and others at inquest.

"If not, I can produce one that says it was."

You're on. Whom at inquest said this?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

case

Hello David. Thanks.

"For counter-evidence you need something."

Counter evidence? The defendant need not even testify. The prostituter--excuse me--prosecutor must establish guilt.

Cheers.
LC