"Down On Whores"

[Bridewell]

I raised this on another thread a few months ago, but think perhaps it should be subject of a thread in its own right:

The view that the 'Dear Boss' was written by an 'enterprising journalistic' is now generally accepted and has almost become axiomatic. If, however, the DB was not written by the killer, what underpins the widely-held view that the victims were slain because they were prostitutes? Of the C5, Nichols, Chapman, Stride & Kelly seem to have plied that trade, if only on a casual basis. Eddowes perhaps, but I don't think that's established as a certainty. How sure, then, can we be that these women were killed because they were whores, if the DB was a hoax?
Why not because they were heavy drinkers, perhaps even alcoholics? Because they were dowdy? Because they were poor? Because they were gobby? Simply because they were women? Is there any evidence - assuming that the DB is not such - that these unfortunates were killed because the Whitechapel Murderer was "down on whores"?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Scorpio]

Schwartz's broad shouldered man seems like a genuine whore-hater; but Eddowes and Kelly's witness reports seem appeared to be at ease in there presence. I believe that alcohol consumption prior to the Stride affair may have left the killer more emotionally volatile in that case. Casual prostitutes may have provided the model for all the killers notions on other gender. I would classify JtR as misogynist: common Victorian variety( sub species).

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bride,

The DB isn't why we think JTR killed whores. The DB suggested as much because that had already become apparent by the time it was written. In other words, the DB was written because prostitutes were being killed, not vice versa. And yes, Eddowes was a prostitute. A policeman testified as much. They all were, and it made them easy pickings.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rubyretro]

Tom -totally agree..

[ChrisGeorge]

I raised this on another thread a few months ago, but think perhaps it should be subject of a thread in its own right:

The view that the 'Dear Boss' was written by an 'enterprising journalistic' is now generally accepted and has almost become axiomatic. If, however, the DB was not written by the killer, what underpins the widely-held view that the victims were slain because they were prostitutes? Of the C5, Nichols, Chapman, Stride & Kelly seem to have plied that trade, if only on a casual basis. Eddowes perhaps, but I don't think that's established as a certainty. How sure, then, can we be that these women were killed because they were whores, if the DB was a hoax?
Why not because they were heavy drinkers, perhaps even alcoholics? Because they were dowdy? Because they were poor? Because they were gobby? Simply because they were women? Is there any evidence - assuming that the DB is not such - that these unfortunates were killed because the Whitechapel Murderer was "down on whores"?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bride,

The DB isn't why we think JTR killed whores. The DB suggested as much because that had already become apparent by the time it was written. In other words, the DB was written because prostitutes were being killed, not vice versa. And yes, Eddowes was a prostitute. A policeman testified as much. They all were, and it made them easy pickings.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Bridewell and Tom

Prostitutes make easy targets for serial killers. Think of the victims of the Yorkshire Ripper, the Green River Killer, and Jack the Stripper.

But you are right, Bridewell, that Dear Boss gives the story line that the killer was "down on whores."

And Tom, you are right that if Dear Boss was a hoax the writer took his or her inspiration for that declaration from the fact that the victims were prostitutes.

We have often discussed the fact that the myth of Jack the Ripper is to an extent shaped by those probably hoax letters. Indeed, it is the perception among the general public that "Jack" wrote taunting letters to the police.

All the best

Chris

[Abby Normal]

I raised this on another thread a few months ago, but think perhaps it should be subject of a thread in its own right:

The view that the 'Dear Boss' was written by an 'enterprising journalistic' is now generally accepted and has almost become axiomatic. If, however, the DB was not written by the killer, what underpins the widely-held view that the victims were slain because they were prostitutes? Of the C5, Nichols, Chapman, Stride & Kelly seem to have plied that trade, if only on a casual basis. Eddowes perhaps, but I don't think that's established as a certainty. How sure, then, can we be that these women were killed because they were whores, if the DB was a hoax?
Why not because they were heavy drinkers, perhaps even alcoholics? Because they were dowdy? Because they were poor? Because they were gobby? Simply because they were women? Is there any evidence - assuming that the DB is not such - that these unfortunates were killed because the Whitechapel Murderer was "down on whores"?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell
First of all that the DB letters are a definite hoax is THE biggest myth in Ripperology-there are many factors that point to them being possibly authentic, but since thats not the point of your post-wont get into it here.

If they are a hoax, it shows that by the time of Annie Chapman it was well known (or thought) that the victims WERE prostitutes.

To the point of your thread, No i do not beleive there is anything that is evidence that they were killed JUST BECAUSE they were whores. They were killed because they were women who were the easiest targets for a serial killer who got off on killing and mutilating women.

[Wyatt Earp]

What about the spreading of the victims' legs? That could conceivably be understood in connection with a hostility toward prostitutes.

[Abby Normal]

I raised this on another thread a few months ago, but think perhaps it should be subject of a thread in its own right:

The view that the 'Dear Boss' was written by an 'enterprising journalistic' is now generally accepted and has almost become axiomatic. If, however, the DB was not written by the killer, what underpins the widely-held view that the victims were slain because they were prostitutes? Of the C5, Nichols, Chapman, Stride & Kelly seem to have plied that trade, if only on a casual basis. Eddowes perhaps, but I don't think that's established as a certainty. How sure, then, can we be that these women were killed because they were whores, if the DB was a hoax?
Why not because they were heavy drinkers, perhaps even alcoholics? Because they were dowdy? Because they were poor? Because they were gobby? Simply because they were women? Is there any evidence - assuming that the DB is not such - that these unfortunates were killed because the Whitechapel Murderer was "down on whores"?

Regards, Bridewell.

Also, I think there is a good chance that Stride and Kelly were not solicitating on the night of there murder, but were possibly looking for a new boyfriend.

[Scorpio]

How can you be certain that these women were killed just because they were ' easy pickings '. There are lots of vulnerable people in society: the homeless, the sick, the very old, and the young.
JtR would be classified as a violent sexual deviant, and the victims more or less involved in the sex trade. Coincidence; i think not.

[Hunter]

Assuming a serial killer here and one who is 'down on whores', why remove the uterus on two occasions; the left kidney in one; the heart in another and apparently take them away?

And on one occasion, place the kidneys, a breast and the uterus under the victim's head?

And... how many men in the LVP would have known what and where the uterus was?

[Tom_Wescott]

How can you be certain that these women were killed just because they were ' easy pickings '. There are lots of vulnerable people in society: the homeless, the sick, the very old, and the young.
JtR would be classified as a violent sexual deviant, and the victims more or less involved in the sex trade. Coincidence; i think not.

I don't think they were selected just because they were 'easy pickings'. I was just stating a fact that they were. It so happens they met ALL of your criteria except young (homeless, sick, old). I think Jack wanted to specifically kill what he saw as ugly useless prostitutes. But others might suggest that he specifically went after older women who would pose less of a physical threat than their younger counterparts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

Assuming a serial killer here and one who is 'down on whores', why remove the uterus on two occasions; the left kidney in one; the heart in another and apparently take them away?

And on one occasion, place the kidneys, a breast and the uterus under the victim's head?

And... how many men in the LVP would have known what and where the uterus was?

Good points, Hunter.

Chris

[Bridewell]

The Because

Hi Bride,

The DB isn't why we think JTR killed whores. The DB suggested as much because that had already become apparent by the time it was written. In other words, the DB was written because prostitutes were being killed, not vice versa. And yes, Eddowes was a prostitute. A policeman testified as much. They all were, and it made them easy pickings.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

I entirely accept what you say. They were all prostitutes, and their being such made them easy targets. I agree. Does that necessarily mean, though, that they were killed because JtR hated prostitutes? Was he motivated to kill prostitutes in particular, or just to kill women, amongst whose number whores would be the easiest target to hit?
It's a fine distinction, I know, but they were all not just prostitutes, but intoxicated prostitutes (although I accept that AC may only have appeared to be so). The fact that they were all prostitutes doesn't prove that they were killed for being so. If it did, would it not be equally valid to argue that, as they were all drunk, they were killed for being drunk?
I hope I'm not sounding more than usually belligerent. That's not my intention. I too think it likely that the victims were targeted for being prostitutes, but I don't feel that I have any solid evidential basis for holding that opinion.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Hunter]

The removal of the uterus was specific and intentional. and it didn't have anything to do with these women being useless prostitutes or drunk prostitutes or any kind of prostitutes. Neither did disfiguring two of them's faces or stabbing Tabram and Eddowes in the groin... That is if we're talking serial killer here.

This was part of a demented fantasy acted out in reality. It pertained to women in general. The medical evidence is plain to see. Its the one tangible thing that is there... indisputable if seen for what it represents... That is, if we are connecting these murders to one individual.

The fact that they were a certain type of woman, killed in a limited area in high risk situations points to the limitations this killer was operating under and the best opportunities available for such a person.

[lynn cates]

Annie

Hello Cris.

"The removal of the uterus was specific and intentional."

Certainly true in Annie's case.

Cheers.
LC