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

[Robert St Devil]

I think that ,,hitching the skirt up,, may have been a factor in the case of Polly Nicholls. Paul or Cross say that they tried to pull the skirt down, but it barely reached past the knees. So she may have hitched it up under her dress in preparing for a sexual encounter.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Caz...

In the spirit of historical research, I tested out your dialogue from Post#39. {rubs a swollen jaw} I don't think that was what was said lol.

IN THE CASE OF ANNIE CHAPMAN...

If he had removed the items after cutting her throat and/or abdomen, wouldn't there have been blood reported on the items laid out next to her?

RStD

An explanation for the things laid out could be quite simple. If she had gone into the yard to have sex and that was to be attained by her hitching her skirt up. If she had items in her pockets which she didnt want to fall out she could have taken them out and placed them down to pick up afterwards.

There are always plausible explanations to be found to every part of these old accepted theories which modern day ripperology has been built on. Only now are we finding that it has been built using straw bricks.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Caz...

In the spirit of historical research, I tested out your dialogue from Post#39. {rubs a swollen jaw} I don't think that was what was said lol.

IN THE CASE OF ANNIE CHAPMAN...

If he had removed the items after cutting her throat and/or abdomen, wouldn't there have been blood reported on the items laid out next to her?

RStD

[caz]

I wouldn't go so far as to discount the possibility, but I'm afraid the idea that Hutchinson "sanitised" his account just doesn't bear scrutiny. If his desire to preserve his respectability (and that of Kelly) was such that he was prepared to distort the reality of his encounter with her (to the extent that a sexual proposition is dressed up as an innocent money loan), surely he was better off avoiding any mention of money altogether? He could easily have claimed that the conversation amounted to little more than a "How are you? Long time no see etc", thereby "sanitising" his account without doing any damage to his subsequent tale involving Astrakhan.

Ah, well that's my point in a nutshell, Ben. If he was Kelly's murderer, he had no need whatsoever to volunteer to the police, never mind "dress up", any suggestion of a requested financial transaction between the two of them. That is precisely why I can hear the ring of truth here, if not the whole, unvarnished version of the truth. Hutchinson had some time to think about what he was going to say, so the mention of the sixpence makes little sense coming from the killer's own mouth. If his desire to preserve his freedom and his neck was such that he was prepared to confront the police and lie to them (to the extent that a murderous encounter is dressed down as an innocent witness sighting), "surely he was better off... etc etc" [exactly what you said]?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm suggesting that there was no beating about the bush when it came to prostitutes approaching potential clients and vice versa, at least not in that environment. I'd further suggest that evasion and euphemism was even less likely to occur in a situation where both parties were well known to each other, as Hutchinson claimed was the case.

Hi Ben,

Whether or not the entire incident ever happened, Hutch had his reasons for reporting that Kelly had asked him to "lend" her sixpence and that he was unable to help. She was dead so he could have reported any or no conversation between them, as long as it didn't adversely affect his own, potentially precarious position. In this regard he would have been wise to avoid - at least initially, and unless he was put under pressure - any direct suggestion of a sexual nature, true or not.

On balance, assuming there was a conversation, and presuming Hutch was no murderer, I still believe there would have been a general understanding of what was meant when a known prostitute asked a man to "lend" her money. Abberline was quite capable of reading between the lines - and allowing for a blurring of them - while satisfying himself that Hutch had not been up to anything infinitely more nefarious.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The problem is, you cannot tell who is watching you, when you are being watched, and how many are watching you.

The ripper had that "problem" from the moment he started murdering people, but he obviously didn't allow paranoia to deter him, or else he wouldn't have continued. No, he couldn't "tell" for sure, but he would have been justifiably secure in the assumption that if he did little to draw attention to himself, he would be likely be ignored as just another faceless nobody in 400.

That's another exaggeration, criminals are spotted in today's big cities all the time without the 'witness' needing to study the faces of the 300,000 inhabitants.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Of course criminals are "spotted" all the time, but if they cannot be connected with their as-yet-unsolved crimes and are simply going about their unremarkable, non-criminal daily business at the time of the "spotting", what is there to "spot"? I'm sure many residents of Wichita walked past Dennis Rader washing his 4x4 without sounding the alarm that he might be the BTK killer - why would they?

What "published description" was lodger Jack supposed to have feared being seen "answering" to? A bloke with a peaked/billycock/deerstalker hat and a moustache? That's most of the residents.

I'll quote you a line from one of your preferred literary sources, the Star...

" in the absence of immediate motive, which means the absence of clue, we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."

A criticism aimed directly at the police for what was perceived as a futile exercise of searching lodging-houses, so it is not simply a recent modern opinion, but was echoed at the time.

Yes, but you overlook the far more important point, which is that the police were investigating lodging houses. Irrespective of the Star's criticism (and you'd be changing your tune if you're now siding with them over the police!), the authorities evidently considered it a strong possibility that the killer lived in a common lodging house, which would not be the case if they embraced your logic that the supposed prevalence of criminals made it unsuitable for a criminal to go there.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Even if Kelly was able to charge a higher rate and Hutchinson was a friend, might that friendship not have taken the form of offering him a discount because she felt sorry for him? (I'm not saying that's how it was. I'm just reluctant to discount possibilities).

I wouldn't go so far as to discount the possibility, but I'm afraid the idea that Hutchinson "sanitised" his account just doesn't bear scrutiny. If his desire to preserve his respectability (and that of Kelly) was such that he was prepared to distort the reality of his encounter with her (to the extent that a sexual proposition is dressed up as an innocent money loan), surely he was better off avoiding any mention of money altogether? He could easily have claimed that the conversation amounted to little more than a "How are you? Long time no see etc", thereby "sanitising" his account without doing any damage to his subsequent tale involving Astrakhan.

I'm also rather doubtful that Kelly was in the habit of dishing out cut-price sympathy shags for old mates.

Whilst I can't say that all of them discount his detailed description of Astrakhan Man solely because of the lighting conditions, those conditions are almost invariably put forward in support of that belief

I think it would be a mistake to assume that Abberline treated every detail as accurate, down to the last eyelash. His initial, face-value approval indicated that he accepted the barebones of the account; which isn't to say he opposed the idea of some of the more iffy accessorial detail being the result of innocent confabulation on the part of a witness anxious to be cooperative.

I wouldn't oppose that particular idea myself were it not for myriad other factors, discussed extensively elsewhere, that lead me conclude that Hutchinson lied, rather than "confabulated".

I don't doubt that there was more to the Chapman-punter dialogue than was overheard by Long. What I do doubt, very much, is that there was any modesty-preserving equivocation over what was being proposed.

Regards,
Ben

[Bridewell]

If that was all the witness heard, and all the suspect said ("Will you?") doesn't it illustrate my point that some things were understood but not stated?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

And we can't be sure that the exchange Mrs Long overheard was the entirety of the conversation. I can't imagine that Chapman or any other unfortunate would have gone to a secluded place with a punter without first agreeing on a price.

[Wickerman]

Yes Ben, I am well aware what a few extra pence can buy, the cubicle was not for security but to provide a modicum of privacy, not complete privacy, and only for those who could afford it.
And I didn't say "everyone" is watching you, that's an exaggeration. The problem is, you cannot tell who is watching you, when you are being watched, and how many are watching you.

You wrote: "As for seeing if people's faces were "familiar", they'd have quite a job, Jon. Anyone so arsed would need to study the chops of 400 people on a very regular basis to take into account the daily influx of itinerants."

That's another exaggeration, criminals are spotted in today's big cities all the time without the 'witness' needing to study the faces of the 300,000 inhabitants. So no, your objection holds no water. There is a far greater chance in a lodging-house of someone recognising a published description than if the killer rented a room in a house.

I'll quote you a line from one of your preferred literary sources, the Star...

" in the absence of immediate motive, which means the absence of clue, we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."

A criticism aimed directly at the police for what was perceived as a futile exercise of searching lodging-houses, so it is not simply a recent modern opinion, but was echoed at the time.

[Bridewell]

I’ve not been aware of any such implication myself, Bridewell, less still from a “lot of posters”. As I think Garry pointed out elsewhere, there is nothing new about expressions of scepticism regarding Hutchinson’s description; they were made at the time of the murders by people with just as much familiarity with 19th century lighting conditions as Abberline, and tellingly, his story came to be “considerably discounted” shortly thereafter.

My impression is that there are more people on this forum who discount Hutchinson's account than who accept it. That's a lot of posters. Whilst I can't say that all of them discount his detailed description of Astrakhan Man solely because of the lighting conditions, those conditions are almost invariably put forward in support of that belief. My post may have been provocative in tone but I don't think the content does anyone an injustice.

[Bridewell]

Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that a prostitute could have friends (even male friends)? And ask a friend for a loan? If Mary did charge at a higher rate, Hutch would scarcely have been a customer.

Best wishes
C4

No it's not beyond the bounds of possibility, but nor is it beyond those bounds that Hutchinson was a punter but who sanitised his account to show Kelly and/or himself in a better light. Even if Kelly was able to charge a higher rate and Hutchinson was a friend, might that friendship not have taken the form of offering him a discount because she felt sorry for him? (I'm not saying that's how it was. I'm just reluctant to discount possibilities).

[curious4]

I think it was more likely that she got off due to the money she inherited from her mother, thus proving that she was no longer without means, but that's a matter of interpretation.

C4

[Michael W Richards]

Getting on the Swedish register of prostitutes was incredibly easy at the time. Not having a fixed address or having a baby out of wedlock (as Liz did) was enough to get a woman on the register. So Liz didn't necessarily have had to be a streetwalker.

C4

Liz was pregnant during that period of her life as it happens, and although it was easy to get on the register, it was notoriously difficult to get off it. One qualifier was that the application party had to provide the authorities with a confirmation of employment signed by the employer.

Liz got work as a nanny while streetwalking to survive, and her application to be stricken from the register was granted.

Liz's history demonstrates she preferred legitimate work. When it could be had, of course. That's an Unfortunate by definition...contrary to what many people interpret as a definition of a full time streetwalker.

[Ben]

If that was all the witness heard, and all the suspect said ("Will you?") doesn't it illustrate my point that some things were understood but not stated?

I'm not disputing that particular point, Caz.

I'm suggesting that there was no beating about the bush when it came to prostitutes approaching potential clients and vice versa, at least not in that environment. I'd further suggest that evasion and euphemism was even less likely to occur in a situation where both parties were well known to each other, as Hutchinson claimed was the case.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

No Jon, not "quite the contrary" - precisely what I said.

Some of the larger lodging houses enjoyed better reputations than their smaller unisex counterparts, with some even operating a vetting process designed to filter out known "bad characters". For a few pence extra, it was even possible to secure a "cabin" (in reality more of a cubicle) away from "prying eyes and itchy fingers". The idea that everyone was minding everyone else's business in these places is a very long way from reality; most of the inmates were focussed only on putting head to pillow to await the next day's toil.

As for seeing if people's faces were "familiar", they'd have quite a job, Jon. Anyone so arsed would need to study the chops of 400 people on a very regular basis to take into account the daily influx of itinerants.

No, a common lodging house is a very viable type of bolt hole for a killer seeking to blend into the crowd. I keep hearing about these "single rooms" that the killer was supposed to have lived in, but if we're envisaging a local killer - as most of us sensibly are - such accommodation was scarce in an overcrowded district like Whitechapel.

All the best,
Ben