Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where was Jack the Ripper's payment? How much did Mary Jane Kelly charge?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Where was Jack the Ripper's payment? How much did Mary Jane Kelly charge?

    1. Where was Jack the Ripper's payment?
    2. How much did Mary Jane Kelly charge?

    1. Jack the Ripper apparently makes transactions with five prostitutes at different times. Prostitution would seem to require payment in advance, or else we are led to believe Polly Nicholls & the other ladies worked on good faith. There is no money found at the crime scenes.

    2. Mary Jane Kelly is brothel-trained. She is young, which could be a ,,sexual virtual,, in of itself. She sings for her client, and she sings for an hour. She can provide a ,,comfortable,, environment without worry or interruption of a constable. She can provide a bed rather than the damp wall of a dark alley. A client could ,, lounge,, by a fire with a pot of beer. Compare to Polly Nicholls, who may charge a 4s doss rate for an alley encounter, Mary Jane Kelly might be inclined to charge a brothel rate.
    there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

  • #2
    Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
    1. Where was Jack the Ripper's payment?
    2. How much did Mary Jane Kelly charge?

    1. Jack the Ripper apparently makes transactions with five prostitutes at different times. Prostitution would seem to require payment in advance, or else we are led to believe Polly Nicholls & the other ladies worked on good faith. There is no money found at the crime scenes.

    2. Mary Jane Kelly is brothel-trained. She is young, which could be a ,,sexual virtual,, in of itself. She sings for her client, and she sings for an hour. She can provide a ,,comfortable,, environment without worry or interruption of a constable. She can provide a bed rather than the damp wall of a dark alley. A client could ,, lounge,, by a fire with a pot of beer. Compare to Polly Nicholls, who may charge a 4s doss rate for an alley encounter, Mary Jane Kelly might be inclined to charge a brothel rate.
    Hi Robert
    I would imagine the ripper, gave the victims money up front, carefully watched where they put it, and then took it back after he killed them.

    and yes MK probably charged more.
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • #3
      Money Up Front?

      If Hutchinson did see Mary with the Whitechapel Murderer and did hear him say "You will be alright for what I've told you", this sounds like a financial deal going on. This would mean he didn't pay her untill they got back to her room or was maybe having it on tick? Would that be normal?

      Pat.....

      Comment


      • #4
        I've never found this to be a tricky question...I always assumed that if the killer paid his victims, he took the money back after murdering them

        Of course, the Ripper could have been an ambush killer. I don't think he was, but there's no evidence either way.

        Comment


        • #5
          I've always assumed that the woman would get the money before she and the client got to grips, so to speak; that would be as soon as they got to a dark spot, wall, yard etc he would hand the money over.

          I think Jack may well have given them the money over first, but then proceeded to attack them when they were conveniently in position. I presume he would have popped his sixpence on Mary Kelly's hand when they got in her room.

          After all, none of the victims, including Tabram, were found with as much as a farthing on them. Annie Chapman's pockets had been rifled and her brass rings were gone, so I'd say it's almost certain Jack robbed his victims after killing them.

          Comment


          • #6
            He could have killed them before the payment stage.

            Other than for MJK, time was surely very much of the essence. He may have struck the moment he felt it was safe to do so, ie in a suitable location.

            If he took the money back after death then this was significantly increasing the risk of being caught.

            Just a thought.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm one who sees a stalking killer as a real possibility.

              But either way, why wouldn't the killer just take whatever money the victim had, regardless of the source.

              If he was a client,me may even taken some perverse pleasure in using the same coin/s over and over with each victim.
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Maybe Hutch was after a "favour" from Kelly and she wanted to charge him sixpence.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi All,

                  The wholly imaginary George Hutchinson said that Kelly asked if she could borrow sixpence.

                  Not the sort of language you'd expect a prostitute [if indeed she was one] to use at 2.00 am in Commercial Street.

                  I would have been far more inclined to believe the story had Kelly said, "Hello, George, fancy a quick shag back at my place? Only a tanner."

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes she may well have said something like that in this scenario.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes, Hutch, or Abberline, were probably cleaning up the language a bit in the police statement!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wrong, wrong, wrong. The correct answer is... antipodes.

                        Hello all.

                        My efforts to get street level with the murders. So it seems....

                        Jack the Ripper robbed the women. I,d think he robbed his money back from Polly Nicholls and Annie Chapman before the abdominal cuts and lifting their dress over their body, Azarna. The items of her pocket would be easier to get-to then. No chance of loose items falling out of her pockets. However, this is Victorian England, and i get the impression that a mere hike of the dress above-the-knee may have constituted indecent exposure; I,m not entirely certain how far up Polly,s dress was pulled. If these women are supposedly being attacked while they are lifting their skirts up for sex, then they should have money in their pockets by then.

                        The 2nd question is an attempt to understand the disparity between Mary Jane Kelly and the other ladies. Or, what was the purpose for the street murders if what he really wanted was an apartment murder? I,m trying to evade ,,love interest,, solutions. The first that came to mind is Mary Jane Kelly and apartment prostitutes may have been too expensive for him.

                        ---------------------------
                        Devil,s Advocate: The man who robbed the liquor store wore a Chicago Bulls Starter jacket, baggy pants and a new pair of Air Jordan hi-tops. He also wore a thick gold chain with a crucifix.

                        If I gave this modern description of a perpetraror, would you consider my eyewitness testimony suspicious?
                        there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Assuming Jack killed Stride and was interrupted, did he take the few seconds to steal the money? Seems unlikely.

                          Under the reasonable assumption that he paid and then robbed his victims, I'm wondering if he did this before or after the mutilations.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Didn't Stride's boyfriend, when called upon to identify her, handle her bonnet and run his fingers around the inside of it presumably for any money with none found?

                            I would think he'd take money from them prior to mutilating because of the blood but after cutting their throats.

                            Questions: Didn't Jack kill mainly on the weekends, leading to a possible conclusion he was a working man? I've always wondered this because he seems so screwed up I have often wondered how he could function at a level to hold a job.

                            Also, if he did work during the week then that leads to the question of was he married or living with anyone? I'm sure the police considered this. The reason I've wondered it is because if he met with girls on the street he'd be on his way in no time, and be home again without a suspicious time away. However, when he was out for so long at Kelly's, hours presumably (?) then was he missed? Did the spouse or whoever he lived with have any inkling? Did they 'keep quiet'? Then why? Fear?

                            Lastly, how did he manage to be able to live anywhere? If he had a job it makes sense he lived somewhere but if he didn't he was homeless as these women? Was he living also in a dos house? Is that where he knew them from. I think I read many of the canonical five shared the same dos house or were around the same street, can't remember where I read this.
                            Last edited by Beowulf; 06-11-2016, 01:15 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If Jack was a local he may have been like thousands of males in the East End at that time, who relied on casual work to get by. He could have been in work sometimes, then laid off at other times with very little money and had to resort to doss houses.

                              I do tend to think, because of the timing pattern of the murders, that Jack was in regular employment between August and October 1888, at least. He could have then have been unemployed for a few weeks and got some work in November, which allowed him to go on the prowl again and approach Kelly.

                              It's all speculative, isn't it, but I just can't see him as a married man or perpetually in doss houses because of the possibility of spouse or fellow doss house lodgers spotting something and telling others.

                              I think he had a room somewhere, in the epicentre of Whitechapel at least for the first murders, and could have been employed as a slaughterman or jobbing butcher. However, I guess I'll never know just how correct or completely off the mark I am!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X