Catherine Eddowes and Prostitution

[bonestrewn]

Hi all,

It's a lovely Sunday here and I hope you are all having one as well!

I'm currently listening to the "Mitre Square Revisited" episode of Rippercast and the subject of Eddowes as a casual prostitute came up. It had a lot of consonance with a parallel passage in Philip Sugden's Complete History.

In both the podcast and Sugden's book, the point is raised that no one who knew Catherine Eddowes in life would "admit" to her being a prostitute. In fact, I believe her partner at the time of her death flat-out denied that she was a prostitute in any way.

In both cases, the speakers or author quickly assert that, despite these testimonies, she was in fact a prostitute. In "Rippercast" they say something along the lines of her being in a dark corner of Mitre Square and why else would she be there if she wasn't prostituting herself to JTR?

I am a bit confused by this line of reasoning. Isn't it as reasonable to assume she was, idk, trying to have a wee somewhere she wouldn't be seen (as she was coming down from being extremely drunk)? Or that she was looking for somewhere unlit to curl up and try to catch an hour of sleep?

Can anybody let me know if there is something more substantial than this as far as evidence goes? I am still a novice so very willing to believe I've overlooked something. Otherwise, it seems to me that a large assumption is being made on the basis of Eddowes just being poor and female.

Thank you in advance!

[c.d.]

Hello Bonestrewn,

Welcome to the boards. I would say the answer to this puzzle is to look at things from Jack's perspective. He sees a lone woman out late at night. Is she soliciting, waiting for someone (a date perhaps) or is she handing out Bible tracts? He won't know unless he approaches and interacts with her. So even if she were actively soliciting that night or not, we don't know what her reaction would be to an offer of money for sex.

My understanding is that Eddowes did have a history of prostitution even if casually. But the question of whether she was soliciting that night is essentially moot. All that is needed for her to have been a victim of the Ripper is for the two of them to interact.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Oops!!! It appears my brain took a small vacation. Your question concerned Eddowes. My answer referred to Stride. Sorry about that.

c.d.

[seanr]

There’s no evidence whatsoever that Catherine Eddowes was a casual sex worker and I can’t imagine Mitre Square being a convenient place for such a person to take a client.
I don’t think she was a prostitute and there’s no evidence to support the claim that she was, other than the tendency of the police (and much of the population) to assume that women of her ‘class’ were prostitutes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s no evidence whatsoever that Catherine Eddowes was a casual sex worker and I can’t imagine Mitre Square being a convenient place for such a person to take a client.
I don’t think she was a prostitute and there’s no evidence to support the claim that she was, other than the tendency of the police (and much of the population) to assume that women of her ‘class’ were prostitutes.

Hi Sean,

It’s difficult to know if she engaged in prostitution when desperate for cash but we know that it was a common practice in those tough times. This doesn’t mean that we should assume that she did though of course. It’s easy to fall into the trap of trying to read between the lines and then coming up with an incorrect deduction but when John Kelly said at the inquest:

“I did not know of her going out for immoral purposes at night. She never brought me money in the morning after being out at night.”

..he might have been being a little defensive against any suggestion of him living off ‘immoral earnings.’ Equally he might have been telling the exact truth in that either she never engaged in prostitution or that he genuinely just wasn’t aware of her doing it. Wilkinson also spoke quite well of her too so was he being truthful or was he being defensive against suggestion of prostitution at the lodging house? We can’t assume to know.

Kelly last saw her at around 2.00 then PC Robinson took her in at 8.30 for lying on the pavement drunk, so how did she get her money? She told Kelly that she was heading to her daughter’s in Bermondsey to try and borrow money but she never got there so we have to ask where she got the money from to get falling down drunk? As she was known to like a drink or two it might suggest that it would require a fair bit to get her into that state? Again, we can’t assume but it’s at least possible that she found a client or two or just one man willing to buy her drinks. It’s difficult to come up with any other means of her getting cash. I can’t recall if there’s any other evidence Sean but you’re right to express doubt. I tend to suspect that she did engage in prostitution when desperate but I wouldn’t try and claim it as a fact.

The fact that she was seen talking to a man at 1.35ish might also suggest prostitution. Maybe the killer just saw a woman on her own in the early hours and made the assumption? Maybe a man propositioned her and she, in desperation, said yes for the first time?

As far as I can remember (and I certainly might have forgotten something) we have no definite proof.

[bonestrewn]

Oops!!! It appears my brain took a small vacation. Your question concerned Eddowes. My answer referred to Stride. Sorry about that.

c.d.

Not a problem, c.d.! I appreciate your reply nonetheless Now you've got me curious, though--did Stride have a habit of handing out Bible tracts? LOL!

[bonestrewn]

There’s no evidence whatsoever that Catherine Eddowes was a casual sex worker and I can’t imagine Mitre Square being a convenient place for such a person to take a client.
I don’t think she was a prostitute and there’s no evidence to support the claim that she was, other than the tendency of the police (and much of the population) to assume that women of her ‘class’ were prostitutes.

Thank you, Sean! My impression is that, despite the evidence-based focus of modern Ripperology, this is still a baseline assumption--that Eddowes must have been a prostitute. I know that scholarship on the LVP used to assume that the majority of women in the East End were casual prostitutes (I think I recall some crazy number, like one person thought that 70% of women were prostituting themselves?), so it seems to be a holdover from an older period of scholarship, or from the general set of assumptions about Jack and his typical maneuvers (i.e. the assumption that he always targeted prostitutes).

[bonestrewn]

Hi Sean,

It’s difficult to know if she engaged in prostitution when desperate for cash but we know that it was a common practice in those tough times. This doesn’t mean that we should assume that she did though of course. It’s easy to fall into the trap of trying to read between the lines and then coming up with an incorrect deduction but when John Kelly said at the inquest:

“I did not know of her going out for immoral purposes at night. She never brought me money in the morning after being out at night.”

..he might have been being a little defensive against any suggestion of him living off ‘immoral earnings.’ Equally he might have been telling the exact truth in that either she never engaged in prostitution or that he genuinely just wasn’t aware of her doing it. Wilkinson also spoke quite well of her too so was he being truthful or was he being defensive against suggestion of prostitution at the lodging house? We can’t assume to know.

Kelly last saw her at around 2.00 then PC Robinson took her in at 8.30 for lying on the pavement drunk, so how did she get her money? She told Kelly that she was heading to her daughter’s in Bermondsey to try and borrow money but she never got there so we have to ask where she got the money from to get falling down drunk? As she was known to like a drink or two it might suggest that it would require a fair bit to get her into that state? Again, we can’t assume but it’s at least possible that she found a client or two or just one man willing to buy her drinks. It’s difficult to come up with any other means of her getting cash. I can’t recall if there’s any other evidence Sean but you’re right to express doubt. I tend to suspect that she did engage in prostitution when desperate but I wouldn’t try and claim it as a fact.

The fact that she was seen talking to a man at 1.35ish might also suggest prostitution. Maybe the killer just saw a woman on her own in the early hours and made the assumption? Maybe a man propositioned her and she, in desperation, said yes for the first time?

As far as I can remember (and I certainly might have forgotten something) we have no definite proof.

Mr. Sholmes, thanks for your reply! I think you lay it out pretty clearly that she could have prostituted herself, but that we don't know for sure.

For myself, I come from a family history of addiction, and I am familiar with the conduct of alcoholics, of course on a purely anecdotal level. I have the impression, from the story as told (the missing time and the way that her partner, Kelly, searched her bonnet for hidden money), that she may have squirreled away money to use on her alcohol addiction, and that accounts for the missing time--just that she was, like many alcoholics prefer to do, drinking away from her partner who might criticize her or who might show concern over her habits.

Again, this is my personal impression of her "story" and not based in fact. But I'm very appreciative of your response. You always have great info to share

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mr. Sholmes, thanks for your reply! I think you lay it out pretty clearly that she could have prostituted herself, but that we don't know for sure.

For myself, I come from a family history of addiction, and I am familiar with the conduct of alcoholics, of course on a purely anecdotal level. I have the impression, from the story as told (the missing time and the way that her partner, Kelly, searched her bonnet for hidden money), that she may have squirreled away money to use on her alcohol addiction, and that accounts for the missing time--just that she was, like many alcoholics prefer to do, drinking away from her partner who might criticize her or who might show concern over her habits.

Again, this is my personal impression of her "story" and not based in fact. But I'm very appreciative of your response. You always have great info to share

Thanks Bonestrewn. It’s one of those questions where we probably have to admit defeat from the outset. Even my ‘suggestion’ that a hardened drinker would have required a significant quantity doesn’t necessarily ring true on reflection. A regular in some of the local pubs were I live was a known ‘drunk.’ Almost every time I saw him in a pub he was drunk but someone that knew him better told me that he often hadn’t had that much to drink that particular evening. He was just ‘topping up.’ So maybe it didn’t take that much to get Catherine drunk?

I still wonder where she came by the money for drinks though (if she hadn’t been to her daughter’s, as she had told Kelly she was intending to do) Times were tough so it’s difficult to see someone standing her a few drinks unless it was some bloke expecting to be ‘rewarded.’ If she had no means of raising money while she was with Kelly earlier what opportunity could have arisen in the meantime? The most that we can say, I think, is that it’s a reasonably possibility that she engaged in prostitution when desperate but we have no actual proof.

[c.d.]

Times were tough so it’s difficult to see someone standing her a few drinks unless it was some bloke expecting to be ‘rewarded.’

I was just about to post something very similar, Herlock. That behavior in a pub could certainly have caught the attention of Jack.

c.d.

[FISHY1118]

There’s no evidence whatsoever that Catherine Eddowes was a casual sex worker and I can’t imagine Mitre Square being a convenient place for such a person to take a client.
I don’t think she was a prostitute and there’s no evidence to support the claim that she was, other than the tendency of the police (and much of the population) to assume that women of her ‘class’ were prostitutes.

What evidence do you want Sean?

Perhaps a signed document saying "i Catherine Eddowes am a casual part time postititute !". What do you think she was doing with man ,most likely her killer at 1.35 am in a dark corner of Mitre Square.?

[jmenges]

The Rippercast episode mentioned in the first post was an interview with Neil Bell from 2008, joined by myself, Howard Brown, Mike Covell and Jana Oliver.
Transcript provided by Apple Podcasts.

“Back to Eddowes and the night of her murder, let's start off with what is an assumption that seems like a pretty safe assumption to make, and that is that on the night of her death, she was practicing prostitution, and that's just repeated to everyone, and it assumes that all of Jack the Ripper's victims were casual prostitutes, and that's how he chose his victims, but it is interesting that in her case, in the inquest, no one that appeared at the inquest, who knew her personally, fessed up to her at any time resorting to prostitution in order to make money. What are your views on that, Neil?

Well, I'd say more of a casual prostitute, so, I mean, at the end of the day, you've got to look at the location where she was found, at the dark corner, or rather the darkest corner of the square, not too far away from the main thoroughfare, as happened with Nichols, Chapman as well.

So, that in itself indicates that she was, I'd say, soliciting. Now, the question is, as you mentioned earlier, is it a casual thing or was that for the one to the better place her job? I don't think it was a full-time prostitution that she engaged in.

I think it was a casual thing. I mean, she'd come back from popping a few, well, only a few days before she was murdered. And apparently she didn't, or rather her and Kelly didn't pick up much money from that.

So, I feel it was more of a casual thing than a full-time thing. I mean, she's also given a false name to the police, which is a prostitutes' trick. It's something that they used to do.

So, there are little indicators like that that will say she's... I don't think she earned most of her money hawking. Let's put it that way.

Now, do you think that she may have... And this is open to everybody. We can all chime in here.

That she may have been maybe hiding the fact that she was engaging in casual prostitution from John Kelly and then on top of that, also, you had mentioned that she gave a false name to the police of Mary Ann Kelly, I believe is what she called herself, is that right? When she was identified by, it seems like she “gave a false name to a lot of people, not just to the police. Some people who attempted to identify her body at the mortuary thought that that was Jane Kelly.

And so she did use an alias, which I agree is what many of the prostitutes did. But it seems like she went by several different names, not just to the police, but to people who she would run into in acquaintances and stuff, the lodging house. So first, let's see if anyone believes that maybe John Kelly was being honest in his inquest testimony when he said that he never suffered her to go out onto the streets and such.

Anyone?

I think he was just being polite. It has been mentioned, possibly the idea that he was trying to cover that they might think he might be pimping for. Or the other thing, it just might be a matter of pride that the woman had to go out to do this on the side.

I find it interesting that she said she was going to go visit her daughter, but if I'm getting this correct, the daughter hadn't really been in the location she said she was “going to visit for quite a while. So I wonder if Kate was just telling Kelly that to make him feel good if she came back with more money. So I've got it from my daughter, even though he probably wouldn't see her and meet the daughter.

So it was just kind of covering where she was getting her source of income.

That's kind of what I... So in a way, maybe Kelly was being honest. He probably knew what was going on, but at the same time, I mean, he...

Yeah, if he had genuine affection for her, he was going to feel bad if she had to go out and hike her skirts to keep him fed.

Right. Neil, what do you have...

I agree. Yeah. I think that's probably more than likely the case, to be honest with you.

Yeah, because at the inquest, he basically says two separate things. He says first that, like I said, he had never suffered for her to go out, but then when he was asked directly if he ever knew for her to be walking the streets, he says something to the effect of, well, we didn't have money for “our lodgings as an answer to whether or not she was being, is she ever engaged in prostitution. And then you have Wilkerson, I believe his name is the deputy of Cooney's at 55 Flower and Dean Street say not only that he didn't know her as a prostitute, but I think he was also the one who said that he didn't believe she had had any other man but John Kelly or something to that effect.

Which is interesting.

Right.

Mike in Hull?

Yeah, on the subject of, I was still discussing whether or not he knew about this. At the end of the day, I think it's a matter of pride. No man wants to admit that his partner is doing that sort of thing.

Especially to something that's going to be put down on paper and people are probably going to read the next day. People in the East End are not silly. They'll sort of read the newspapers and find out what this woman was doing.

So for him to sort of say that in a way is protecting her. And of course his own reputation as well.

Yeah, and it's like there seems to have “a collective effort at the Inquest to hide the fact that she was a prostitute. Because when you have Eliza Gold, her sister, deny that she was ever a prostitute. Granted Eliza Gold had last seen her four to seven weeks or something like that before her death.

But then you have, I mean maybe they all had something to hide. You know, the lodging house keeper not wanting to run a house of ill repute or protecting what kind of activities going on in the lodging house.

I have a question for Neil. Personally, I think the biggest irony in the Mitre Square murder is that had Kate Eddowes had been arrested 300 yards away in MET territory, she probably would have lived since she would have slept the entire night in jail and not been released. How do you look at that, Neil?

Yeah, that was rather unfortunate, to say the least. That may be the reason why she worked there, if indeed she was a prostitute. I mean, for the benefit of the listener, Meta Police, when they arrested drunks, kept them in overnight and they were released early in the morning.

City's police policy was that “they actually kept them in until they were deemed sober, and that would be the station sergeant or the inspector would verify whether they were sober in their view or not. Now, Eddowes worked, or rather it would seem that she worked, at the Old Gate High Street area. There was a reporter that a police officer recognised her as working in the area.

The fact that she partied with Kelly in Hounstitch, again that's right on the border of city and net area, would indicate that she was heading towards the city area. So she may have actually chosen that, just an idea, I'm not saying that's certain, she may have chosen that area simply because she knew that if she did get picked up for being drunk she would be released again once she sobered up. So therefore it brought her a little bit more time to earn that little bit extra money.

Yeah, that follows, I was going to follow with that. Do you think that other prostitutes were aware of the different procedures of the two different police departments?

They've been picked up enough times, yeah. And I think, especially if you're long in the tooth “on the game as it were, you might be excited.

Now, I have an odd question. What would it take to get, if these ladies were used to drinking, or Kate was fairly adept at drinking, how much would it take in Victorian England or whatever they were drinking to get drunk to the extent that she was? I mean, that indicates a fair amount of disposable cash.

Admittedly, it wasn't very much for a wee bit of gin, but that indicates either somebody was buying her the drinks, or she made some money between the time she left Kelly and the time she ended up in jail. But I always wondered about the drunk thing, because if you're fairly acclimatized to drunk, to drink, then that's a fair amount of booze.

Yeah, I think she left Kelly around about 12 o'clock in the afternoon. And that's about correct, and she was picked up around about 8.30am by PC Robertson, that's a fair few hours of heavy drinking. The way I look at Eddowes is, and I can't help doing this, is if you look at Coles and Sadler, Sadler was dushed, he'd just been paid, he picks Coles up “in a bar, and they're spent most of the evening, and the next day drinking together.

So very, very similar situation with Eddowes. I mean, where she was found, well, supposedly outside 29 Aldgate High Street, which didn't exist, Robinson was just picking up a number from the store. Yeah, but it was right next to the Bulls, I think it's the Bulls Inn.

There was quite a few drinking establishments, as with any high street, not only in the East End, in London, in the UK, anywhere, any main thoroughfare, there was quite a few pubs. So, to me, it would seem that somebody was buying her the drink. I don't think, well, probably a mixture of both, I don't know.

“So she picked someone, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, it's fairly light, it's fairly light until about 6 o'clock in the evening. Where would she go in daylight, with a stranger or a punter or whatever you want to phrase it, to do the deed? So, you know, it's more of a promise, I would think, for later in the evening.

Which is probably why she asked the time report when she left Bishop today. What's the time? She may have been meeting up with a boat a bit later on.

Yeah, she still owes him a payment for the drink.

Exactly.”

JM

[jmenges]

Hi all,

In both cases, the speakers or author quickly assert that, despite these testimonies, she was in fact a prostitute. In "Rippercast" they say something along the lines of her being in a dark corner of Mitre Square and why else would she be there if she wasn't prostituting herself to JTR?

As one can read from the transcript, this wasn’t the only line of reasoning presented.

Or that she was looking for somewhere unlit to curl up and try to catch an hour of sleep?

Although opinions change over the course of fifteen years, I feel confident that none of the participants in the Rippercast episode would today rather buy into the theory that Eddowes was sleeping in the cold, dark corner of Mitre Square as a more plausible alternative to having met with a client, probably in Church Passage, who then murdered her minutes later.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for posting that Jon. So I think that we would probably all agree that Catherine certainly didn’t earn every penny that she ever received from prostitution therefore the question is whether she resorted to it when times were desperate and she had no alternative? Although we can’t prove the latter point we would all also accept that people like her sister, Kelly, Wilkinson etc would have had a motive for going into denial mode if she had resorted to soliciting. As is mentioned in the podcast we have to ask where she got the money from to get so drunk? How likely is it that anyone in her circle of friends/acquaintances would have been able to afford to stand her drinks until she could hardly stand? How else could she have earned cash? The likeliest would appear to be either a client or three or a man who had ‘expectations’?

Then we have her probably being seen talking to a man in Duke Street. So we go by the stated times (and before anyone reminds me..yes, I know that I’m always banging on about poorly synchronised clocks) and she is released at 1.00 it’s only a 15/20 minute walk to Mitre Square (approx) and yet Lawende and co see her 15 minutes or so later. Might she have gone in a different direction and met someone then walked to Mitre Square (slightly against this would be the question of why they stopped to talk - surely arrangements would have been agreed on by then?) Then again, as there had been some rain then maybe she had just taken shelter? Who knows?