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

[TTaylor]

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.

This is very likely. He would have had to have paid - sex workers do not agree to "I'll pay later" types.

By coincidence, the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, in the 1970s, had problems with the payments he made. A note found on the body of one of his victims was traced to a payroll, and he was one of only a few hundred men who would have received such notes. This led to a police interview, although he escaped suspicion.

In a later crime, he first tried to put off, then attacked a sex worker when she asked for payment. She managed to escape, because he was clumsy and acting in an improvised manner. Sutcliffe had obviously become afraid of leaving money on any of his victims, in case it was traced back to him.

Jack the Ripper had no such worries. But it must be significant that none of the women had any money at all on them. The theft of coins and rings was one of his signature moves.

[Wickerman]

I've always interpreted the fact personal items were found beside Chapman and Eddowes as indicating her killer searched through her clothing, looking for his 'fee'.
Payment up front was the normal method, 'ladies' didn't offer their services on trust.

[Paddy]

I cant explain why but I always thought Mary might have had some kind of pawning or clothes scam going on. I cant see her taking in washing.

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

[Bridewell]

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.

If the form of payment was a sixpence and it was concealed by swallowing it, what would the killer do to get his money back? Go in after it perhaps?

[Bridewell]

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

Just a thought.

Hi Azarna.

Why would this significantly increase the risk of capture?

[Bridewell]

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

That's my take on it too.

[Bridewell]

Hi All,

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

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

Are you saying that Hutchinson himself was imaginary or that his testimony was imaginative?

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."

Playing devil's advocate, perhaps that's what she did say and Hutchinson sanitised it somewhat?

[Bridewell]

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?

In my case: No.

A lot of posters on this forum, however, will imply that they know the lighting conditions on 19th century Commercial Street better than Abberline did.

[Bridewell]

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.

Would it not depend on which was more important to him? On that basis, if he could afford to take the modest financial hit of losing his money he'd mutilate first. If he couldn't, he'd get his money back first and then mutilate. On balance, I think the first scenario to be the more likely.

[Bridewell]

I cant explain why but I always thought Mary might have had some kind of pawning or clothes scam going on. I cant see her taking in washing.

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

Interesting idea, but would it need to be a scam? Could she not have simply allowed her room to be collection / drop-off point in return for a small fee?

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Youve based your questions on the assumption that Jack met with his victims while they were soliciting and while he posed as a client. Its worth remembering that only 2 of the Canonicals can be assumed to have been soliciting strange men, because they actually told friends that they were on the very nights they were killed. Interesting to add that they were the first 2, that they were less than 2 weeks apart, and that the similarities in the methodology and acquisition style are undeniable. If Pollys killer hadnt been alerted to someone approaching, we may well have seen her abdomen opened and the intestines over her shoulder. It may have been that street attack that was interrupted that led to a backyard encounter less than 2 weeks later. In any event its impossible to deny that in these 2 cases PM mutilation was at least one of his goals.

Now, if any evidence ever springs from the ground that suggests Liz, Kate or Mary were indeed soliciting when they met a stranger that kills them, then your question would be revealing...as it stands though its very much like so many of the posts here these days, and to be fair, much like what we hear from the contemporary investigators....assume something without any supporting facts in hard evidence,.. certainly before anything has been proven.

[curious4]

That's my take on it too.

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

[Pierre]

Youve based your questions on the assumption that Jack met with his victims while they were soliciting and while he posed as a client. Its worth remembering that only 2 of the Canonicals can be assumed to have been soliciting strange men, because they actually told friends that they were on the very nights they were killed. Interesting to add that they were the first 2, that they were less than 2 weeks apart, and that the similarities in the methodology and acquisition style are undeniable. If Pollys killer hadnt been alerted to someone approaching, we may well have seen her abdomen opened and the intestines over her shoulder. It may have been that street attack that was interrupted that led to a backyard encounter less than 2 weeks later. In any event its impossible to deny that in these 2 cases PM mutilation was at least one of his goals.

Now, if any evidence ever springs from the ground that suggests Liz, Kate or Mary were indeed soliciting when they met a stranger that kills them, then your question would be revealing...as it stands though its very much like so many of the posts here these days, and to be fair, much like what we hear from the contemporary investigators....assume something without any supporting facts in hard evidence,.. certainly before anything has been proven.

Maybe he was warning them. For Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

[Ben]

“A lot of posters on this forum, however, will imply that they know the lighting conditions on 19th century Commercial Street better than Abberline did.”

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.

[Ben]

“Yes, Hutch, or Abberline, were probably cleaning up the language a bit in the police statement!”

Probably not, Rosella.

Kelly is specifically quoted in Hutchinson’s statement as having said “Hutchinson, will you lend me sixpence?”. If you lend someone money, you are doing so on the understanding that it will be returned at some stage, which is completely different from a prostitute-client relationship, in which the latter’s payment – for that specific service - is certainly not returned. So if Hutchinson was actually propositioned by Kelly, but told the police that she only wanted him to lend her money (attributing to her a direct quote to that effect), it wouldn’t have been a “sanitisation” so much as a fabrication.

I agree that the killer was probably a casually-employed east-ender, but wouldn’t rule out a lodging house as his bolt-hole. The larger lodger houses catered to upwards of 400 lodgers on a nightly basis, many of them transient, making it very unlikely that anyone would have the time or inclination to scrutinise the movements of one particular needle in such a haystack. The residents of these establishments were too preoccupied with their own daily struggle for survival to engage in curtain-twitching antics, and it wasn’t as though a man dossing down in the small hours was remotely unusual.