Catherine Eddowes and Prostitution

[bonestrewn]

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?

Thank you for the summing-up, Mr. Sholmes!

BTW, I've been following the Mitre Square Timeline thread and have to applaud your hard work! You're shedding some light on a dark corner... so to speak!

[jmenges]

Hi Mr. Menges,

Thanks for your reply! My intention wasn't to misrepresent. I was writing the post as I was listening, and found myself surprised and reminded of a similar moment in Sugden.

I am still a bit uncertain because the witnesses are emphatic that she did not resort to prostitution, whereas in other situations, it seems they do reference or acknowledge that victims earned some of their living on the street. I agree there are questions to be asked about where the money came from, but I am less comfortable stating as fact that she WAS absolutely prostituting herself and witnesses just wouldn't "admit" to it.

That’s fine.
But it’s important to point out that what you see happening on the podcast are people expressing their opinions. “I think” and “I feel” abound. No one is stating an absolute certainty. It should be acknowledged (and in a post-Rubenhold world, it hardly ever is) that this exact debate has been held within Ripperology for a long time, and continues to be so. The authors of the A-Z looked into this question and, while they decided that the evidence for Nichols and Chapman engaging in subsistence prostitution was pretty conclusive, is was not so strong in Eddowes case. Their view was countered by Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow in their book ‘Scotland Yard Investigates’ where those authors gave their reasons why they both thought Eddowes was a subsistence, or casual prostitute. So you have two differing views amongst five of the most authoritative authors in the field. We often see critics, like Rubenhold, lump Ripperologists all in together as if there’s a specific set of opinions one must hold in order to be accepted into an exclusive club, and then they imply that all Ripperologists are unquestioningly accepting of everything that’s ever been stated by every author and researcher over time, no matter how distasteful, sexist or ignorant. Obviously that is simply not true, as anyone who spends any amount of time discussing the case with various ‘Ripperologists’ will quickly discover.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for the summing-up, Mr. Sholmes!

BTW, I've been following the Mitre Square Timeline thread and have to applaud your hard work! You're shedding some light on a dark corner... so to speak!

Thanks bonestrewn. I think I’ve gone as far as I can with the timeline so I plan to leave it a week or two then have a last look and see if anything stands out that needs changing.

[bonestrewn]

That’s fine.
But it’s important to point out that what you see happening on the podcast are people expressing their opinions. “I think” and “I feel” abound. No one is stating an absolute certainty. It should be acknowledged (and in a post-Rubenhold world, it hardly ever is) that this exact debate has been held within Ripperology for a long time, and continues to be so. The authors of the A-Z looked into this question and, while they decided that the evidence for Nichols and Chapman engaging in subsistence prostitution was pretty conclusive, is was not so strong in Eddowes case. Their view was countered by Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow in their book ‘Scotland Yard Investigates’ where those authors gave their reasons why they both thought Eddowes was a subsistence, or casual prostitute. So you have two differing views amongst five of the most authoritative authors in the field. We often see critics, like Rubenhold, lump Ripperologists all in together as if there’s a specific set of opinions one must hold in order to be accepted into an exclusive club, and then they imply that all Ripperologists are unquestioningly accepting of everything that’s ever been stated by every author and researcher over time, no matter how distasteful, sexist or ignorant. Obviously that is simply not true, as anyone who spends any amount of time discussing the case with various ‘Ripperologists’ will quickly discover.

JM

Understood!

My only intent was to comment on what seemed like a parallel thought process in 2 locations, and ask a question about it, not to tar all of Ripperology with the same brush. If I thought Ripperology was just an echo chamber for misogynists (as the critics you mention seem to do), I wouldn't be here! I appreciate you taking the time to share from your depth of knowledge in the field.

[Fogelpa]

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?),

I've hard time believing that 70% of the women in the East End were casual prostitutes. Not even in Whitechapel proper can i believe in such a high percentage. I've read somewhere that the police assumed there were around 1200 prostitutes in Whitechapel and that the population was about 80 000 in 1888. I dont know if those numbers are correct but its hardly 70%,even discounting 50% children and 50% men

[jmenges]

The 1200 number specifically refers to women staying in Common Lodging Houses.

As Paul Begg once noted while discussing The Five:

On 25 October 1888, Sir Charles Warren informed the Home Office that there were 233 Common Lodging Houses accommodating 8,530 people, ‘we have no means of ascertaining what women are prostitutes and who are not, but there is an impression that there are about 1200 prostitutes, mostly of a very low condition.’
Hallie Rubenhold estimates that of the 8,530 people in Common Lodging Houses, 2,844 were women, so subtracting the estimated that 1,200 gave her 1,644 ‘who she thinks were not engaged in any form of prostitution’. But in fact it means only that the police had no means of ascertaining whether they were or not.

JM