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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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]

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

That's my take on it too.

[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]

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?

[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...........

[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.

[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.

[Rosella]

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!

[Beowulf]

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.

[Barnaby]

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.

[Robert St Devil]

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?