Was Jack enraged by watching soliciting

[richardnunweek]

Hello Kensei,
Obviously a good point, but considering the time frame , a 'quickie might have led him to believe that she was not far away, hence the back door leading to the garden would have at least been a educated guess.
Regards Richard.

[Errata]

The demon drink was going to be my reason to ask Phil his thoughts on Pollys' bonnet, given the general impression that as soon as these women had any money they went straight to the pub.
However, a bit of retail therapy to cheer yourself up is an extremely good and very human explanation,and ultimately rather moving.
Apart from Polly, is there any clear evidence that the other victims were obviously drunk? in drink certainly,but falling down drunk?
It's far too subjective though isnt it? what I did think based on one of Peter Sutcliffes earliest murders is that drink can cause aggressive behaviour in some people and maybe Jacks victims were stroppy,insulting and said or did something that pushed him over the edge,although in Anne Chapmans case,Long and Cadoschs' evidence doesnt support that.
All the best.

One of the things to remember about these women drinking it that was not strictly vice. The water in Whitechapel was not good to drink. I mean you could and did if you had no other option, but it was pretty nasty stuff. They couldn't afford juice, rarely could afford milk. So gin and beer were not just intoxicants. They were thirst quenchers. So not only did everyone have a pretty high tolerance, the presence of alcohol didn't necessarily mean anything. This doesn't mean that these women were not alcoholics, certain statements indicate that at least two probably were. But it doesn't mean that they were all alcoholics.

[Errata]

Thanks for the reply Richard,

Can I assume you're referring to the non-vaginal intercourse theory? It is, admittedly, difficult to categorically refute. The central idea, I believe, is that the most common form of intercourse was oral. There would not, therefore, be any seminal fluid in the reproductive tract.

The problem with the theory is that it relies heavily on the idea that the doctors were prudish Victorian gentry who were unaware of any other forms of intercourse. Most of the doctors involved were, in fact, Police Surgeons, and, more importantly, local to the area. I think it's reasonable to assume they knew what to look for, and where. The digestive tracts seem to have been analyzed in the surviving post mortem records, and no mention is made of, presumably fresh, seminal fluid.

Seminal fluid does not survive long in the stomach. A couple of minutes, tops. It's possible that some of it could have survived in the mouth, but the technology of the time did not afford a way to find it. I assume these doctors weren't idiots. There are secondary indicators of oral sex having taken place, most notably dirt on the knees of the skirt and small splits in the corners of the lips. Neither are noted. To be brutally frank (as if I hadn't been before this) prostitutes who engaged in oral sex made significantly more money than those who did not. Men paid more for it because it was considered "foreign". Nichols may have done this, given her statement about having had her doss money several times over in a single night. But a good many streetwalkers did not engage in that act.

Prostitutes cleaned up after each client, so it's not surprising that there was no seminal fluid on the thighs. Any other place it might have been would have been swimming with blood, and there was no way to find it after that in that era. It would not have survived in the stomach, and the throat and vagina would have been contaminated with blood. I don't think there was any doubt that at least a few of these women had sex the night they died. I think they were looking for evidence that the killer had sex with them. Which would mean they would not have been able to clean up. Evidently the killer did not engage in vaginal sex with these women, and likely not oral sex either. Which didn't mean that the killer didn't have sexual contact with them. He just didn't do in any fashion that a coroner would have recognized as sex.

None of this means that the killer either did or didn't solicit them, or did or didn't follow them. It just means that if he stalked them, he waited for them to wipe themselves off first. Which if he found their behavior so disgusting, isn't that surprising.

[Robert]

Hi Richard

I do think you have something inasmuch as IF he was motivated by hatred of prostitutes, that hatred would have increased with time. He'd have enjoyed the feeling that he was forcing some of them off the streets, to cower in fear indoors. The ones who remained would have angered him. He'd have viewed their presence as a piece of impudence and a challenge to him. They would have to be taught a lesson.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"I do think you have something inasmuch as IF he was motivated by hatred of prostitutes, that hatred would have increased with time."

Any chance the hatred would have peaked after 38 and a half years?

The best,
Fisherman

[GregBaron]

Untoward subject...

Seminal fluid does not survive long in the stomach. A couple of minutes, tops. It's possible that some of it could have survived in the mouth, but the technology of the time did not afford a way to find it. I assume these doctors weren't idiots. There are secondary indicators of oral sex having taken place, most notably dirt on the knees of the skirt and small splits in the corners of the lips. Neither are noted. To be brutally frank (as if I hadn't been before this) prostitutes who engaged in oral sex made significantly more money than those who did not. Men paid more for it because it was considered "foreign". Nichols may have done this, given her statement about having had her doss money several times over in a single night. But a good many streetwalkers did not engage in that act.

Prostitutes cleaned up after each client, so it's not surprising that there was no seminal fluid on the thighs. Any other place it might have been would have been swimming with blood, and there was no way to find it after that in that era. It would not have survived in the stomach, and the throat and vagina would have been contaminated with blood. I don't think there was any doubt that at least a few of these women had sex the night they died. I think they were looking for evidence that the killer had sex with them. Which would mean they would not have been able to clean up. Evidently the killer did not engage in vaginal sex with these women, and likely not oral sex either. Which didn't mean that the killer didn't have sexual contact with them. He just didn't do in any fashion that a coroner would have recognized as sex.

None of this means that the killer either did or didn't solicit them, or did or didn't follow them. It just means that if he stalked them, he waited for them to wipe themselves off first. Which if he found their behavior so disgusting, isn't that surprising.

Excellent Errata. I must say I often wonder where you acquire your strange, esoteric knowledge. If it was the 17th century I'd accuse you of witchcraft...

With that said, I do wonder the nature of the sexual liaisons indulged in by our victims and their seedy punters...? I know some out here don't believe they participated in oral sex, I suppose due to Victorian prudery, although this may be a naive thought. Also, most people were probably filthy even though I doubt hygiene was a critical factor....And let's face it - their clothing didn't make for easy access....perhaps manual sex was a cheap and relatively less messy option......This is the type of knowledge that is most difficult to obtain because the only ones who knew were the participants(and perhaps voyeurs) and very few of them wrote books.......It's also unlikely this sort of information was passed through the oral tradition (no pun intended). Unfortunately, I do think a bit of knowledge here is relevant to figuring out the particulars of Jack's methods.....



Greg

[Robert]

Fish, I think we're at Cross purposes there.

[Errata]

Excellent Errata. I must say I often wonder where you acquire your strange, esoteric knowledge. If it was the 17th century I'd accuse you of witchcraft...

With that said, I do wonder the nature of the sexual liaisons indulged in by our victims and their seedy punters...? I know some out here don't believe they participated in oral sex, I suppose due to Victorian prudery, although this may be a naive thought. Also, most people were probably filthy even though I doubt hygiene was a critical factor....And let's face it - their clothing didn't make for easy access....perhaps manual sex was a cheap and relatively less messy option......This is the type of knowledge that is most difficult to obtain because the only ones who knew were the participants(and perhaps voyeurs) and very few of them wrote books.......It's also unlikely this sort of information was passed through the oral tradition (no pun intended). Unfortunately, I do think a bit of knowledge here is relevant to figuring out the particulars of Jack's methods.....



Greg

I'm not a witch. I merely used to be a sex educator. We do know certain things. Certain practices in brothels survive because their patrons wrote about it, and sometimes things would get mentioned in bust reports. The real trick is knowing the slang. Also, Victorian erotica certainly existed. Given that those books were written for the enjoyment of men, it is a reasonable assumption that most of the activities in these books would be exotic, certainly not available in the marriage bed.

Oral sex exists in exactly two kinds of societies. Those in which women are viewed as sexual equals, and those in which women (or certain women) are viewed as mere receptacles. The first did not exist in the Victorian Era, the second did. But it's in transition, where wives are supposed to respected and cherished. So oral sex would not exist in the marriage bed, but would exist with prostitutes. But because it is not a generally accepted practice, not a lot of people know about it. Certainly the upper class does, and those with experience overseas. It was called "frenching" which lends one to assume that's where the English picked up the practice. It was more routinely available from French prostitutes. So we can see where the demand would come from.

The problem is, most people think it's disgusting. Not just hygiene issues, it's whole "but he pees out of that thing" problem. And it wasn't just women who thought it was disgusting. So it's a new thing (it wasn't, it just went away for awhile) and every man can immediately see the potential danger of the act. If a man decides to try this, he wants some guarantees, and that means going to a brothel. The assumption is that not only did women in brothels have a more extensive education, but that there was some surety that the man would leave intact. These women get paid more to do this thing. So the question becomes, how long does it take to filter down to streetwalkers?

Probably a while. Lower class men don't know about the practice, and don't ask for it, with the exception of sailors. Streetwalkers are not generally trusted by their customers anyway. These women aren't trained pros. They are untrained starving women. So not only does a John have to know to ask for it, he has to trust her to perform it. We do know what was on offer during WWI. And while oral sex could be had, generally it wasn't. So even 40 years later, it was not this super popular thing for men. As for the women, they would have to make enough money for doing it that compensates for how disgusting they think it is. Which means for most streetwalkers, their Johns don't have the money it would take to get them to do that. Clearly some would, and did. Perhaps after attaining a certain level of drunkenness. They made more than their peers, but not as much as a woman in a brothel would make for the same act. Nor is it easier than conventional intercourse. Most women could get away with using their clamped together thighs instead of actual insertion. That by far is the easiest way to make money. There is no cheating with oral sex.

What all this means is that some streetwalkers undoubtedly did offer oral sex, but likely only when asked. It would not have occurred to the average streetwalker customer to ask. Those who knew of it and wanted it would go to a brothel. I would be surprised if any streetwalker did it more than once or twice a week. But we do know that women who presented with the initial syphilitic lesions had them on their genitals or thighs. I have never seen a case of a woman with syphilitic sores around the mouth. Since the initial lesions occur at the point of contact, given the rate of syphilis infection we can assume that either a: most women didn't do that with any sort of regularity, or b: the female population of London was astonishingly lucky.

Prostitution may be the worlds oldest profession, but it's also one of the most unchanging ones. Tricks that were used by Victorian prostitutes are still used today. The same hierarchy amongst whores still exists, the same inherent dangers, and the same levels of desperation. The only thing that has changed is priority. In Victorian times, the priority was to suffer the least, today the priority is to get out as fast as possible. Which is why nowadays oral sex costs less than vaginal sex.

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"Fish, I think we're at Cross purposes there."

I humbly concede defeat, Robert. Brilliant stuff, that ...

Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

A couple of quick comments , Errata,-

I would credit poor working class East End women of the era with being very
practical and not at all chi-chi. Given that penetration might easily lead to death in a childbirth for a woman, and another mouth to feed for a man, I would of thought that a married couple would soon have cottoned on to the fact that oral sex was a good solution .. It's not as if there were witnesses waiting to judge them.

not a lot of people know about it.

The Worlds best kept secret ? Hmmm.

every man can immediately see the potential danger of the act

. Lorena Bobbitt ? Bionic teeth ? I'm not a man so I don't really
know .

Lower class men don't know about the practice, and don't ask for it, with the exception of sailors.

Really ? Fascinating.

These women aren't trained pros. They are untrained starving women.

Glad that I'm not a man , I 'm petrified as it is..

So not only does a John have to know to ask for it

Somehow, I trust John...

We do know what was on offer during WWI.

Rationing ?

And while oral sex could be had, generally it wasn't. So even 40 years later, it was not this super popular thing for men.

We'll take your word for that, Errata.

[Errata]

A couple of quick comments , Errata,-

I would credit poor working class East End women of the era with being very
practical and not at all chi-chi. Given that penetration might easily lead to death in a childbirth for a woman, and another mouth to feed for a man, I would of thought that a married couple would soon have cottoned on to the fact that oral sex was a good solution .. It's not as if there were witnesses waiting to judge them.

I would think so too. The general attitude was that when a couple was done having children, they stopped having sex. The woman was deemed not to miss sex, and the man resorted to services of a prostitute or mistress. But things are always different behind closed doors.

But we know that syphilis was rampant. And we know that women were not showing up at clinics with initial lesions on their face. If nothing else this suggests that oral sex wasn't that common. We also know that erotica of any given era is devoted to the taboo. Victorian erotica is pretty much group sex, debauching rich women, sadomasochism, rape, and oral sex. That implies that oral sex was not common to the subject audience. We know that brothels offered it, we know that it cost more than vaginal intercourse. The higher the price, the less safe or more distasteful the practice. Since oral sex is not dangerous, the logical conclusion was that it was distasteful.

There is also something of a cognitive disconnect between knowing something, and requesting something. A John knowing that oral sex could be had did not mean that A: he wanted it or B: that he would ask for it. And there's a whole crapload of reasons for that, but mostly humans are creatures of habit and stick with what they know. It's not that oral sex was unknown. Flagellation was not unknown. It's that the public hadn't developed such a taste for it or were even willing to admit to having heard of it that it was a staple of streetwalkers.

And there's another attitude that may be at play. A WWI soldier wrote a letter to his brother (clearly that family was a LOT closer than mine), where he discusses visiting prostitutes. He was offered oral sex as an option, but was convinced that it was a "cheat", that it wouldn't be as good or last as long. We don't have the reply, nor do we have a lot of documentation on what male attitudes were towards oral sex from about the 1840s to the 1940s. But evidently a poor uneducated man had this attitude in 1918. It's not out of the question that others had it as well.

The simple truth is, it's a mystery. It was an open secret in France, Germany, Spain, even India and Egypt. The knowledge was out there to be had. And despite the fact that common sense says it had to happen all the time, there's just no evidence of it being prevalent in any way. There is evidence of vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, evidence of sadism, evidence of incest even. There is just nothing on oral sex, despite it's advantages. It doesn't even show up in feminist or contraceptive literature. Though maybe that's not surprising. The truth is, poor women were being taught every day how to avoid pregnancy. It was illegal, but once a woman got the information from a sympathetic doctor, her only payment for the information was to tell any woman who might need it. It wasn't foolproof, but most poor women were capable of limiting birth. The need for oral sex might not be as dire as it had been even 50 years previous.

[Disco Stu]

Thanks for the reply Errata,

That seminal fluid would be destroyed in the stomach, I'll take your word. However, the time frame doesn't seem to allow sufficient time for the semen to have reached the stomach. Your medical knowledge probably outweighs mine substantially, but I've been led to believe by high-school biology, that there is a period of time after something is swallowed, while it passes through the upper digestive tract, before it reaches the stomach. Am I correct in my thinking, or have I been misled by the Australian education system once more? LOL

[Errata]

Thanks for the reply Errata,

That seminal fluid would be destroyed in the stomach, I'll take your word. However, the time frame doesn't seem to allow sufficient time for the semen to have reached the stomach. Your medical knowledge probably outweighs mine substantially, but I've been led to believe by high-school biology, that there is a period of time after something is swallowed, while it passes through the upper digestive tract, before it reaches the stomach. Am I correct in my thinking, or have I been misled by the Australian education system once more? LOL

The stomach is the first stop of the digestive process. The only thing between it and the mouth is the esophagus, and a sphincter. It may take a second or two to swallow something, but it doesn't just hang out in your esophagus. I count two seconds from swallowing to it hitting my stomach. (I have an ulcer so I tend to know precisely when something hits m stomach. I just took a swallow of vinegar. Do not recommend). But it's not a straight shot. It's sort of a bank shot down the throat.

But it's actually not really a time thing, it's an acidity thing. Seminal fluid is essentially sugar, enzymes and protein very loosely held together. Saliva alone can dissolve almost all of it. Modern swabs can detect it in the mouth, as best I can tell, because the little corpses of sperm don't break down so quickly, so it's essentially just detecting foreign DNA. But saliva breaks it down enough to render it unrecognizable. And kill the sperm. Sperm is actually pretty fragile, which is why it tends to be in the high parts per million.

[Wickerman]

Hi Phil,
The Darrell/Long sighting actual fits well, in with a service in the backyard, an exit by her client, and a possible entry by the killer, and a surprised Chapman, and the thud.
I agree that the absence of any ''secretions'' does not mean that none were present.
Regards Richard.

If "we" are guided by the absence of secretions, then these victims never had sex with anyone.
Therefore, if we assume the victims cleaned themselves adequately after each performance, then what evidence are we expecting to see?

"Jack" apparently, never intended to have sex with any of his victims. So, once again why focus on secretions?

Regards, Jon S.

[harry]

Why does every movement after leaving Holland,as far as Nichols is concerned,have to have been soliciting a customer for sex. What was her reason for being on the streets.Her inital intention had been to secure a bed to rest and sleep.This had been offered by Holland.Her refuseal would still have left Nichols in need of rest and sleep.My idea is that in Bucks Row she might have considered the gateway a tempory solution.It was summer time,and the amount of clothing would protect against any early morning chill.