What's your profile for Jack?

[c.d.]

No "intelligent" talk about victimology? Yikes! Intelligent talk is already in short supply.

But seriously, I don't see how that eliminates JTR.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

wandering lunatic

Hello Patrick. Thanks.

I have no doubt that Polly and Annie were killed by the same hand. Both were soliciting, both were strangled, both had deep parallel cuts to the neck.

I think they were killed by a wandering lunatic. The most likely (in my mind) wore an apron and carried knives. At one point he tried to strangle his wife. When apprehended he claimed he had been getting sheep heads and entrails for resale. Moreover, he had a violent temper and was quite delusional.

The other ladies did not exhibit the traits that Polly and Annie did.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

result

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Well it would seem that the relevant question would be is it a requirement that the woman be a prostitute in order for her to have been a victim of Jack the Ripper? I see no reason why that answer has to be yes. As has been pointed out (and a nice job on that, too) all that was really required was that the victims be available."

Quite. So perhaps we should cease the talk about prostitution? Delighted so to do.

Of course, in our next discussion of "JTR" there could be no intelligent talk about victimology.

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Hello Patrick. Not a bad idea. We could USE some fresh thinking.

What about no JTR? How's that for fresh?

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn. I've seen you use the phrase "no JtR" several times. Can you define that? That each murdered woman had a different killer? I'm sure you've spelled it out elsewhere, but I'd appreciate hearing your views. Thanks.

PDS

[c.d.]

Well it would seem that the relevant question would be is it a requirement that the woman be a prostitute in order for her to have been a victim of Jack the Ripper? I see no reason why that answer has to be yes. As has been pointed out (and a nice job on that, too) all that was really required was that the victims be available.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

the question

Hello (again) DLDW.

"What the hell was she doing out on the street, footpath, after Midnight?

Now THAT is the question.

1. One long date?

A. With whom? And why so late?

2. Waiting to clean?

A. Wearing a flower?

3. Soliciting?

A. Poor place to do it.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

a few points

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"If it looks like a rose. . ."

Or was it a geranium? Perhaps a dahlia? And the fern--maidenhair or asparagus? See what I mean?

"There is evidence to support the fact she had prostituted before."

Yes, aged 16 and in Sweden. When I was 16 I was very anti-intellectual--posh toffs, not down to earth.

"Not sure cleaning alone would be sufficient to support her if she was in the clutches of a binge portion of a cycle."

Do we know she was a binge drinker?

"We are not certain of the specifics of anything other than a woman was out late on the street possibly seen with multiple men that evening."

Indeed. So why not suspend at that point, or perhaps do a double flow chart?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Oh, and the best question... What the hell was she doing out on the street, footpath, after Midnight? One long date? Or waiting to clean? Soliciting? If no club member was involved in what happened to her, and she was there to clean, then it might appear a little ludicrous the notion of the club fabricating a scenario to "protect themselves". Kinda whimpy anarchists to tuck tail at a fine opportunity such as that anyways.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

heh heh heh

Hello DLDW.

"Problem is we have no really good data to suggest she was or had been prostituting herself anytime around that time."

Precisely. So why not place the proposition (no pun intended) in brackets?

Cheers.
LC

If it looks like a rose... By no means is it a huge leap to consider the possibility that she was given to those means. The important thing to remember is that it is a leap when postulating. There is evidence to support the fact she had prostituted before. She had, apparently, left Kidney, which she was apt to do on occassion. By his testimony due to drink. It is not an unreasonable assumption that she COULD resort to whatever means needed to survive being on her own. Not sure cleaning alone would be sufficient to support her if she was in the clutches of a binge portion of a cycle. Which might be likely given it has an intimate source, potentially bias, of Kidney. Another thing to consider is the notion of her leaving him in the midst of Ripper activities. Perhaps a unenebriated mind would think better of striking out at that time. Factors to consider. We are not certain of the specifics of anything other than a woman was out late on the street possibly seen with multiple men that evening. If not a rose specifically, then at least a flower. Disregard this incoherent prattling. Need organised brain. Not this mush.

[lynn cates]

dubito

Hello DLDW.

"Problem is we have no really good data to suggest she was or had been prostituting herself anytime around that time."

Precisely. So why not place the proposition (no pun intended) in brackets?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Fallacy.

I cant believe how many times The Facts need to be mentioned with respect to solicitation and the Canonicals......there is evidence that Polly and Annie were soliciting when they met their killer(s). They both claimed, in the middle of the night, that they needed to earn some doss money. Since neither had regular jobs, and it was the middle of the night, its clear they intended to earn by soliciting. There is not one scintilla of evidence that the same situation applied to Kate, or Liz, or Mary. In fact we know Liz had regular employment leading up to her death, and we know Mary was in her own room and bed when she is attacked.

Of course anyone of them needed money, 4 of the 5 of them were Unfortunates without a guaranteed home each night. Thats not a sound basis for declaring what witnesses saw of Liz, Kate and Mary that night was solicitation. For all any of us know none of those 3 were soliciting on the night they were murdered, and I put forward that as far as Jack the Ripper victims go, soliciting alone at night is a key element to his victim selection.

Cheers

Availability is the key element more so than prostitutes. My opinion of course, but any woman would've sufficed so long as risk was low.

[lynn cates]

fresco

Hello Patrick. Not a bad idea. We could USE some fresh thinking.

What about no JTR? How's that for fresh?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Destitute prostitute, or merely a substitute?

Hello Tracy. Prior convictions? For D & D, yes. If you have any about soliciting, I'd be delighted to see it. There is a story about one such, but I have yet to see the source.

Occasional prostitution to feed the children? May not apply to Liz.

Out late at night? Many women are. Not sure that makes them prostitutes?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Some points valid.

Hi all

I am sorry, have I missed something while being away?

While I agree no-one has any proof that Liz would likely take up being a prostitute, like prior convictions or anything like that...oh wait......

Also I believe the definition of prostitute today does not cover what was happening in 1888. We have read accounts of married woman having sex for money to feed their children etc, they may not be on the streets every night and it may only be an occasional occurrence, but does this not class her as a prostitute?

We know Liz was not against prostitution, that she had little money, that she was out late at night, I think the logical conclusion would be that she was likely trying to turn a trick, unless I really have missed something?

Tracy

Not against? Impossible to determine. Being against a thing and forced to be subjected to it at the same time is very possible. Yes it makes logical sense, but logic is just a tool that can be wielded to suit its master. Given her past and at the time current scenario, it is not infeasible she would take such a course of action. It could be argued anyone might. Problem is we have no really good data to suggest she was or had been prostituting herself anytime around that time. Although, it wouldn't have been terribly an unlikely possibility. I wonder if Stride and Eddowes were not dissimilar. Both had "men" in the mix. I wonder at the dynamic their relationships might have taken on given particular circumstances. Kidney gets about hanged by some whilst Kelly seems to go unscathed. I wonder if it might not should be viewed oppositely. Kelly the pimp instead of Kidney. Kelly checked Eddowes close for money. Kidney got drunk and angry and wanted to do something about it. People express grief differently of course. Wow, I meandered toward tangent land. Shutting up now.

[Patrick S]

Pro or No?

Perhaps it's time to apply a bit of fresh thinking to the idea that ALL of JtR's victims were prostitutes. It may be more accurate to say that his victims were woman who would be on the streets in the early hours (after midnight to dawn, or thereabouts). Clearly, prostitution would put women on the streets at this time. Women of a more 'respectable' character, perhaps, would not be out, alone, at these times. It does seem that most - if not all - of these women were alcoholics (or at least problem drinkers). Perhaps JtR - as a killer of opportunity - presented himself as a customer OR a fellow willing to supply these women with drink, a drinking companion.