Facial Mutilations

[Michael W Richards]

Which all sounds very superior Michael, but I can quote you times when you have insisted something was fact because it was proven. A belief of yours which was neither proven nor fact.

Which might very well confuse the reader as to why you try to correct the assumptions of others, all the while promoting those of your own?

Ive unconventionally used logic, facts and reason when making any statement concerning any aspect of any of these murders, my comments you took umbrage with concern the many myths and assumptions that people regularly use to help illustrate their own spin on the evidence.

Like your assertion that no Canonicals made statements on the respective nights that they were murdered which provide us with their activities just before their murders. As for known activities just before the murder you can add Liz Stride loitering in a passageway on private property, Kate Eddowes having a conversation with "Sailor Man" outside Mitre Square and Mary Kelly sleeping to the Canonical List.

So much for targeting working "prostitutes".

Now....as for these facial mutilations... so easily forgotten....

[Michael W Richards]

As unfortunates I would not class them as prostitutes but women who survived any way they could and dulled their pain with drink. They seemed to have a pawn scam going too and no doubt other dodgy dealings plus hop picking.
I dont feel Liz Stride was prostituting herself but just off having a boozy night out, possibly looking for a chap to buy her some drinks? She was heard to say "No not tonight" to one man.
I do think she may have been waiting to clear the club. However the murderer might have thought she was waiting for clients.

Pat..................

When phrased like that it sounds perfectly palatable to me, however, IF there was a murderer who targeted her because he thought she was alone working the streets one wonders why he went into the passageway to get her...because she was out of sight after 12:35 and in the passageway from that point on, and perhaps more importantly, he isn't someone intent on mutilations.

Its a numbers game for me Paddy..and the numbers don't really add up to a random attack by Jack the Ripper. Someone who was already on the property when Liz enters the passageway is better mathematically, for a few reasons..including an empty street witnessed by a neighbour.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Why I continue bother correcting the plethora of assumptions is getting blurry...I guess, unlike many, I prefer the actual story to a make believe one.

Which all sounds very superior Michael, but I can quote you times when you have insisted something was fact because it was proven. A belief of yours which was neither proven nor fact.

Which might very well confuse the reader as to why you try to correct the assumptions of others, all the while promoting those of your own?

[Paddy]

As unfortunates I would not class them as prostitutes but women who survived any way they could and dulled their pain with drink. They seemed to have a pawn scam going too and no doubt other dodgy dealings plus hop picking.
I dont feel Liz Stride was prostituting herself but just off having a boozy night out, possibly looking for a chap to buy her some drinks? She was heard to say "No not tonight" to one man.
I do think she may have been waiting to clear the club. However the murderer might have thought she was waiting for clients.

Pat..................

[Michael W Richards]

Mr. B.
I suspect Rosella was addressing Michael's reference to 'Liz, Kate and Mary', not yourself.
Just an 'unfortunate' slip of the pen, so to speak.

Rosella was trying to help Michael understand a few things...

As I said, the only thing Rosella revealed is a prejudicial attitude towards women who were forced to commit sexual street acts to survive.

Why I continue bother correcting the plethora of assumptions is getting blurry...I guess, unlike many, I prefer the actual story to a make believe one.

[Michael W Richards]

Rosella,

Ill address you queries using your quote snippets;


So unless the three women you mention in your post had actually stated to friends that they were going to go with men and earn a few pence they didn't have any intention of doing so? Isn't that just a weeny bit naive?

No, actually that would be just following the legal systems protocol of someone being presumed innocent unless proof has been presented against them. No-one seems inclined to allow that these women may have had their own moral and ethical reasons to resist soliciting huh? Or that Mary might have coveted her private space since as we know that was quite rare for the times and place. Interesting bunch.

As for theories without legs Michael, I prefer to believe that Liz was hoping to get a little extra from a client that night in Dutfield's Yard rather than she was waiting around at midnight for the Working men's club to empty before giving it a scrub up. There is absolutely no evidence that Liz Stride had been asked to char that night at the club or anywhere else, and the sixpences she had from her prior cleaning had probably already gone on rent and food.

I think the fact that youd "rather believe" Liz was soliciting tells us oodles about you rosella, but little about why Liz would be doing so when the street was empty and the meeting broke up an hour before she arrived. Supposedly anyone left around was inside,..so...is she planning on picking them off one by one as they leave via the side door? Which raises a question...if ANY member still onsite chose to leave, they would be using the side door, correct? The front one was locked, according to Eagle. So....not one member or visitor stepped into that passageway to have a smoke or leave from 12:30 until after 1am huh? yea..much more realistic that Liz was soliciting even though she worked that very afternoon.

I also prefer the option that Mary was taking men to her room in Millers Court that night, whether they were attractive or not....

So youd prefer to believe Mary was not only for the first time on record bringing clients home to charge them, but that she also likely had poor taste in men....very gracious. I hope that youre spared that kind of "belief" in 125years.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

The word 'unfortunate' was simply a euphemism for 'prostitute', it did not imply a different category of activity or identify the age of the woman (as suggested in WWD's book).

Have a look at the data from the 1881 Census posted by Chris Scott. The 'unfortunates' working out of places like Palmers Folly and Betts Street were not lodging house casuals, and most of them were very young.

http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-2398.html

Since we have full time prostitutes of the period being referred to as Prostitutes it would seem that a new category called Unfortunates wasnt really needed for you. It was however needed by anyone who sought to distinguish women who made their living solely by Prostitution from those who occasionally found themselves doing so to survive.

I wonder why Liz Stride while still in Goteborg sought to have her name stricken from the prostitutes register, why she bothered getting a charwomans job instead of just working the streets. One needed first to obtain "legitimate" work and have that verified before one could be stricken from the register, something very uncommon, ... I wonder why she bothered?

Maybe she, and the thousands of other women forced into doing what many of them must have felt was degrading and vile, would appreciate the distinction between Prostitute and Unfortunate.

These were people, and being dead doesn't mean they can or should be accused of acts we have no proof of.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Michael (and Bridewell)

Thanks for providing the sources!!
As I previously wrote, neither of them said they were going to solicit !!
(which I wrote in response to a claim made by Lynn that only Nichols and Chapman, by their own words, were soliciting. Which of course is not what they said.
It`s not an opinion of mine, Michael, and I`ll keep calling it if needs be.
See the quotes you provided above.

Now, of course they were planning on soliciting. But we only come to this conclusion because we are aware of their situations. They didn`t actually say it, as Lynn states.

And, we can make this same logical conclusion with Eddowes and her being seen with Church Passage man.

Hi Jon,

They had already been out doing what they said they needed to do before mentioning anything to either respective witnesses...this was not a plan for the near future, it was their current state of affairs.

Polly said she had "earned" her doss money a few times over, and Annie was out soliciting when she makes her remarks to her friends.

Cheers

[Rosella]

No, sorry I wasn't clear, MrBarnett. I was referring to Michael's post and the three members of the C-5 he mentioned who never apparently told anyone they were going out to solicit on the night of their deaths.

[MrBarnett]

Mr. B.
I suspect Rosella was addressing Michael's reference to 'Liz, Kate and Mary', not yourself.
Just an 'unfortunate' slip of the pen, so to speak.

Rosella was trying to help Michael understand a few things...

I guessed as much. Perhaps I should have added a at the end of my post.

[Sleuth1888]

Hi All,

Why did the ripper mutilate the victims faces?

It has been mentioned before on here, but was the reason for attacking the nose maybe a message saying Eddowes stuck her nose into someones business?

In medieval times the nose being cut had association with betrayal, the eyes are the window to the soul and slitting/cutting someones lips was a punishment for blasphemy.

I also discovered that nose amputations had happened to women by jealous vengeful women in 18th century Paris.

In the 9h century nuns at St Cyr Monastry in Marseilles, had cut of their own noses to avoid sexual attacks by the Saracens who did indeed spare sexual attacks at the cost of the nun's lives.

What do you lot think, why did he inflict facial mutilations?

We can never know the true reasons why the perverted Jack the Ripper mutilated his victims.

But as regards the Eddowes facial mutilations, the cutting off of the nose is reminiscent of how prostitutes were branded. I think the Ripper mutilated the face of Catherine Eddowes to shout out to everybody that this woman was indeed a prostitute. There have been some doubts as to whether Catharine was indeed a prostitute or not.

[Wickerman]

In which post do I refer to three women? Perhaps you have confused me with someone else - isn't that just a weeny bit careless?

Mr. B.
I suspect Rosella was addressing Michael's reference to 'Liz, Kate and Mary', not yourself.
Just an 'unfortunate' slip of the pen, so to speak.

Rosella was trying to help Michael understand a few things...

[Jon Guy]

Jon:

Here are 2 accounts that corroborate my claim.

Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest.
Born c.1838, aka Ellen Holland, 'Nelly', Jane Oram

Holland had returned from watching a fire at the Shadwell Dry Dock at about 2.30am on the 31st August 1888 and met Nichols at the junction of Osborn Street and Whitechapel Road. Nichols claimed that she had earned her doss money three times that night, but had spent it (she was by this time particularly drunk) and was adamant that she would earn it again, refusing to return to Wilmott's with Holland. She allegedly claimed she wanted to go somewhere where she could share a bed with a man (presumably The White House at 56 Flower and Dean Street).


Witness at Chapman Inquest Amelia Palmer

Amelia Palmer (as 'Mrs Farmer') in a sketch from the Pictorial News, 15th September 1888.
Witness at Annie Chapman's inquest. (Also known by the surname 'Farmer')

She had seen Chapman several times during the week before her murder - earlier in the week, they met in Dorset Street where Annie had reported feeling unwell. The next day they met again outside Christ Church Spitalfields; again, Annie was complaining of feeling ill and Palmer gave her 2d, warning her not to go spending it on drink.

They met again towards the end of the week and this time, Chapman complained of feeling too unwell to do anything (she was meant to go to Stratford), but stated that "it's no good my giving way. I must pull myself together and go out and get some money or I shall have no lodgings

What I said was that both women told others that they needed to "earn" the night they were killed, seems by the above I was accurate.

I suppose your rebut will be about how they intended to "earn", but Im satisfied at what I interpret their remarks to allude to. If your not, then that's your opinion. But that doesn't authorize you to call anyone out for using actual evidence instead of their own opinion.

Regards

Michael (and Bridewell)

Thanks for providing the sources!!
As I previously wrote, neither of them said they were going to solicit !!
(which I wrote in response to a claim made by Lynn that only Nichols and Chapman, by their own words, were soliciting. Which of course is not what they said.
It`s not an opinion of mine, Michael, and I`ll keep calling it if needs be.
See the quotes you provided above.

Now, of course they were planning on soliciting. But we only come to this conclusion because we are aware of their situations. They didn`t actually say it, as Lynn states.

And, we can make this same logical conclusion with Eddowes and her being seen with Church Passage man.

[MrBarnett]

Quite true, MrBarnett. Women who were prostitutes for whatever reason called themselves 'unfortunates'. There wasn't a caveat on it as in 'I'm an 'unfortunate' when I need rent but when I need food because I'm starving or if I crave drink and need money for those things, I aren't."

So unless the three women you mention in your post had actually stated to friends that they were going to go with men and earn a few pence they didn't have any intention of doing so? Isn't that just a weeny bit naive.

You only have to search the Old Bailey Online website using the key word 'unfortunate' to discover that young women apparently of fixed abode frequently described themselves as 'an unfortunate' or 'an unfortunate girl'.

In which post do I refer to three women? Perhaps you have confused me with someone else - isn't that just a weeny bit careless?

[Rosella]

Quite true, MrBarnett. Women who were prostitutes for whatever reason called themselves 'unfortunates'. There wasn't a caveat on it as in 'I'm an 'unfortunate' when I need rent but when I need food because I'm starving or if I crave drink and need money for those things, I aren't."

So unless the three women you mention in your post had actually stated to friends that they were going to go with men and earn a few pence they didn't have any intention of doing so? Isn't that just a weeny bit naive?

As for theories without legs Michael, I prefer to believe that Liz was hoping to get a little extra from a client that night in Dutfield's Yard rather than she was waiting around at midnight for the Working men's club to empty before giving it a scrub up. There is absolutely no evidence that Liz Stride had been asked to char that night at the club or anywhere else, and the sixpences she had from her prior cleaning had probably already gone on rent and food.

I also prefer the option that Mary was taking men to her room in Millers Court that night, whether they were attractive or not. She wouldn't have had Blotchy in her room to give him a selection of Victorian ballads.