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

[Barnaby]

We can't determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that Eddowes engaged in sex work. But I think the opinion that the victims were NOT engaged in sex work unless concrete evidence indicates otherwise (as in The Five) is incorrect. Why should this be the default assumption? No one in modern times is blaming or making moral judgments against these women. Here, we have to ask ourselves if it is more likely than not that Eddowes was engaged in sex work. People may come to different conclusions. I side with the traditional opinion that she was engaged in sex work. She either got money for alcohol or had someone buying her alcohol. She wasn't selling broadsides that day. In addition, she was seen conversing with a man late at night minutes before her murder near a spot where sex workers attracted clients, and the police generally assumed she was engaged in this work. Perhaps she wasn't. Perhaps she got money/alcohol in other ways. Perhaps she was simply accosted by her killer on her way back from the police station. But I believe the most likely interpretation is that she was engaged in sex work.

[Barnaby]

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?

This would be more likely to be true in a person with pronounced liver disease. In these end-stage alcoholics, a few drinks can produce pronounced intoxication. Most heavy drinkers, however, drink prodigiously, and I can't believe Eddowes was passing out drunk and being arrested from only a drink or two. There's no evidence in the autopsy report that Eddowes was suffering the severe physiological effects of alcohol. The liver and pancreas are mentioned, but no mention is made of them being enlarged, diseased, etc. In comparison, the possibly diseased state of the kidneys is mentioned, so I assume if Eddowes had liver cirrhosis it would have made its way into the report. In addition, there is no evidence from her behavior that she was suffering the cognitive effects of end-stage alcoholism such as memory loss, confusion, confabulation, etc. So, I think it is more likely that Eddowes was not in terribly poor health, was nonetheless a heavy drinker, and would have required a number of drinks that day to get into the shape that got her arrested.

[VincentP]

What would the most likely scenario be?
I find it very strange that Eddowes would've accosted the man -- yet how did he approach her to start up a conversation without alarming her? What did they talk about?

It appears her killer, regardless, was capable at disarming her; he can manage a conversation long enough without alerting these women. How that conversation went about to discuss any transaction between the pair one can only wonder.

Was Jack a charmer do you think? Eddowes was, and please correct me if I'm wrong, heard to have been stating by a passerby, "Ah, you've a rough old life" to the man, placing her hand on his chest.

That seems a very intimate and bold move. . .I think it's safe to assume Catherine, while not a prostitute by profession, did at times engage in casual sex for monetary reasons. Or maybe her killer was good looking and she wanted to get her Jimmy's off? No other reason to go in a dark corner with a complete stranger.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think the timing of Eddowes murder is particularly significant.
We know she was given time in her cell to sober up, and we know the approximate time between her leaving the police station, to the point she was found butchered.
We also know that at some point after leaving the police station, it had been raining heavily.

When we combine all of these factors, it is evident that Eddowes had no time to get drunk again after she left the police station.

Heavy rain tends to have a sobering effect.

That means she had a reasonable awareness; or certainly a more coherent one, when she was murdered; compared to when she was in her cell.

That then begs the question; why was she in Mitre Square if she wasn't soliciting?

She certainly wasn't drunk.

This means that if she wasn't soliciting, then we need a reasonable explanation as to why she was there.

Did she know her killer?

Was he charming enough to convince her he wasn't a threat?

Was she led there under duress?

I find it difficult to believe that Eddowes would have made the choice to venture into a dark corner and engage with a man who presented as a man of unstable mind; ergo, a raving lunatic Jew who drank out of gutters.

On the contrary; when we look at the evidential circumstances leading up to her death, it seems virtually certain that Eddowes at least had the presence of mind to make a choice to go into the empty square with her would be killer.

If the man presented as a regular guy, then Eddowes would have perhaps had a moment whereby she let her guard down.

If she wasn't actively soliciting, then I believe the killer was known to her personally, or perhaps a former client.

But if she was soliciting, then it seems highly probable that her killer gave her no reason to be suspicious, both in terms of his manner and appearance.

The killer also needed somewhere to conceal his formidable blade; perhaps under his overcoat, in a walking stick, in a bag etc...

I find the idea of a bespoke customised blade a viable option; having been made by the killer, akin to a retractable blade concealed along his forearm.

The suspect/person if interest James Kelly springs to mind. He fashioned a key from scrap and managed to escape confinement; clearly a clever individual.

In terms of Eddowes choices that night, it is difficult to explain why she was in Mitre Square if she wasn't soliciting, but unlike Nichols who was arguably drunk at the time she was murdered, Eddowes would have had the relative awareness to know her surroundings well enough to make that choice to go into the square with her killer.

It's fascinating indeed.

[seanr]

No other reason to go in a dark corner with a complete stranger.

Perhaps she knew him.

[The Rookie Detective]

Perhaps she knew him.

If she wasn't soliciting, then he was almost certainly an acquaintance at the very least.

If she didn't know him at all; ergo, wasn't an acquaintance whatsoever, then that strongly implies she was soliciting for sex, to get money.

I do find it odd however, that she told her other half that she was going to visit a family member.
We know this to be untrue.

Could that suggest that Eddowes was intimately involved with her killer on a more personal level?

The man seen with Stride kissing her and being overly affectionate, is perhaps also suggestive of a courting couple.

Was the Ripper a man who charmed his way into building a level of trust with his victims over a period of time?

If so, this could also support the reason why Kelly was butchered inside her room at the one time she had split from Barnett.

That's convenient timing for Kelly's killer.

The style of blitz attacks across the board suggest the opposite; ergo, the victims were chosen randomly and impulsively.

It does make one wonder though, whether the alleged comment by Eddowes of having known who the Ripper was; had more relevance than we could ever imagine.

Fascinating.

[FrankO]

What would the most likely scenario be?
I find it very strange that Eddowes would've accosted the man -- yet how did he approach her to start up a conversation without alarming her? What did they talk about?

It appears her killer, regardless, was capable at disarming her; he can manage a conversation long enough without alerting these women. How that conversation went about to discuss any transaction between the pair one can only wonder.

Was Jack a charmer do you think? Eddowes was, and please correct me if I'm wrong, heard to have been stating by a passerby, "Ah, you've a rough old life" to the man, placing her hand on his chest.

That seems a very intimate and bold move. . .I think it's safe to assume Catherine, while not a prostitute by profession, did at times engage in casual sex for monetary reasons. Or maybe her killer was good looking and she wanted to get her Jimmy's off? No other reason to go in a dark corner with a complete stranger.

Hi Vincent,

Welcome to the boards! As to your questions/wonderings, I have the following to offer. It's only my view, but there you go.

I think women living in the East End in those days, in general, were (sometimes) so desperate for money (for a bed, a drink or something to eat) that they couldn't afford to be (too) picky about soliciting. As long as the man in question didn't act or look too suspiciously and he had the money, they would take them anywhere. A snippet from the Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper of 30 September 1888 shows what I mean.

"Last night a correspondent furnished us with another strange story of an incident occurring early on Thursday morning, near to the scene of the four murders. He states that early in the morning a woman was sitting sleeping on some steps in one of the houses in Dorset-street, when she was awoke by a man who asked her whether she had any bed to go to, or any money to pay for a lodging. She replied that she had not, upon which he said he had money, and then gave her what she thought was two half-sovereigns. She went with him down a passage, and when there he seized her by the throat and tried to strangle her. A scuffle ensued between them, in which she screamed and got away. The next morning she found that what he gave her was two farthings machined round the edge like gold coins. She described him as being a man with a dark moustache, and dressed in a rough frieze blue overcoat."

As to the killer being a charmer, I don't think he had to have been. Like I said, these women were desperate and would approach him instead of the other way around and as long as he didn't look or act too suspiciously and showed them the money, he would be alright.

All the best,
Frank

[bonestrewn]

Thank you all for your fantastic replies and your thoughts on this matter!

For myself (and only for myself, I don't expect to persuade!) I am still not comfortable saying it's most likely Eddowes was prostituting herself. I do think it's one possibility. But I find that the assumption that she met with or led her killer purposely into a dark corner becomes a bit of a feedback loop with the assumption that she engaged in sex work. Once we have decided that it was most likely she solicited Jack, then all of our questions become about how she picked him, what her actions were around the solicitation, etc. and our understanding of the logic of her death focuses on what and how and who she solicited.

Again, this is purely my personal thought on the matter and I don't ask anyone to change what they think. For myself, as I mentioned earlier, I find Eddowes' actions consonant with those of an alcoholic trying to hide her habit. It is extremely common for addicts to hide money or resources to feed their addiction, even to the point of depriving themselves and their families in other respects. We know that her partner immediately searched her bonnet for hidden money upon seeing her at the morgue. Perhaps she had a history of such behavior? It is also not at all uncommon for an addicted person to claim to be off doing something important, while really they've gone to use. On the basis of these thoughts and impressions, I do not personally believe that the only way she could have gotten drinks was soliciting sex.

Regarding the mention of The Five: while I have read the book, it is not my first point of reference for, really, anything regarding this case, since there are so many demonstrated issues with the scholarship. I asked my question sincerely because I had read and been listening to trusted voices (Sugden's Complete History is recommended in the strongest terms on the casebook site) that brought up evidence that directly contradicted (to my viewpoint) the conclusion they drew. This is not to say I don't understand the reasoning now that we have entered into further discussion, nor that I do not respect the work, intelligence, and argumentation of anyone involved. I was not asking as a "gotcha" with Ms. Rubenhold waiting breathlessly for the results of my sting operation. LOL.

Thank you all again for your responses. While I may take a different approach, please do not take this response as my dismissing anyone's argument or the value thereof. I value all your input given that I am still in my "apprenticeship" with this case.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think the idea of who led who into Mitre Square has never been fully determined.

That can be said for all of the murder sites.

Did the victim lead their soon-to-be killer into a secluded place where they felt relatively safe?

Or did the killer use a charm offensive to persuade their prey to accompany them to their place of demise?


There are arguments for both sides; and of course, the question as to whether each victim was or wasn't touting for business at the time of engaging with the killer, adds weight to both sides of the argument depending on the answer to that.


Did the killer choose the kill site?

It would explain how they were able to work so quickly and quietly in such a short time frame, and under immense pressure of being caught red-handed.

Or did the victim lead the killer to a spot they felt safe?

If so, then how did the killer evade the ever increasing police presence towards the end of the series of murders?


How did the Ripper manage the killing of Eddowes without leaving a single trace?

It seems an almost impossible scenario if the killer had no say in where the murders took place.


The question is; how much planning went into each kill?

The murders seem random and sporadic blitz attacks, and yet each time the killer was able to navigate through time and space without anyone noticing.


Either the Ripper just got extremely lucky, or in terms of kill sites, had planned each killing beforehand.