Those Damned Cachous

[lynn cates]

1888

Hello Gwyneth. Actually, both socialists AND anarchists were there in 1888. Indeed, that was about the year when the anarchists began to get the upper hand.

Have you had a go at Rocker's "The London Years"? Good read.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Butterworth

Hello Dave. That's an EXCELLENT book. Phil Carter put me onto it.

Interesting that Rachkovski was called to the East End of London mid-1888 because of the influx of anarchists.

Did you see his remarks about Rachkovski and Jack the Ripper?

Cheers.
LC

[MrBarnett]

Hi Lynn,

But who laid the cobbles? If it was the socialists, then perhaps they were known as the 'red setters'.

MrB

[Tom_Wescott]

No cobbles, Barnett. And the socialists wouldn't have laid them. They moved into the house in 1885 and other pre-existing businesses were already using the passage.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

But who laid the cobbles? If it was the socialists, then perhaps they were known as the 'red setters'.

...much better than being called the "old cobblers", I guess

[lynn cates]

no

Hello Mr B. Thanks.

Not they. The yard was there before them.

Cheers.
LC

[MrBarnett]

Tom,

No cobbles? Is that an established fact or an assumption based on the mud on Stride's side?

I ask the question because the reference to the gutter doesn't seem to make sense in the context of a packed earth floor. And the setts in the yard in Phil's photo look very similar to me to those over the footpath and in Berners Street itself (albeit running in a different direction).

MrB

[Tom_Wescott]

I have some info somewhere on the passageway, but I haven't looked at it in years. However, I recall the passageway, much like the make-shift gutter that abets it, was not of the professionally cobbled variety.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

I also can't see a client giving them to her as a sort of present. Why give a gift to somebody that you are paying for sex?

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

But would a prospective client, especially one who actually meant to kill her, have wanted to part with hard cash for the privilege if there was no need? If Stride was found with no money on her, she must have spent every last penny to her name that evening, or been robbed of it by her killer.

Any little item he had on his person could have been used to try and appease, entice or distract her. He could even have acquired cachous for that very purpose; something the ladies liked. While she was peering in the darkness to see what he was handing her, she would not be expecting the attack and would not be in the best position to defend herself when it came.

Also, if there is any truth at all in the suggestion that some of the area's unfortunate population could be 'bought' for a stale loaf of bread, I would not rule out some meaner clients offering anything but hard cash in the first instance, to see if it would do (or should that be secure?) the trick. In particular, would the killer have rummaged through a victim's possessions to retrieve money he had given her, if he could have avoided parting with any in the first place?

Having said that, on balance I prefer a simpler scenario whereby Stride heads for the club to pay an urgent call of nature. A tanked-up BS man follows her there and shoves her, perhaps misinterpreting her haste and destination as some kind of personal snub. She explains she just needs a wee - badly - and manages to get shot of him. Relieving herself, she emerges from the unlocked privy, takes out the packet of cachous she bought earlier, and suddenly finds herself overpowered by her killer, who saw her go in and lurked in the darkness to wait for her to come out again.

Now that could have been BS man, returning with extra venom and purpose (who had a sharp knife all along but hadn't considered using it earlier), or another man who had witnessed the whole episode and was prepared to take deadly advantage.

In either case, we wouldn't need a 'conventional' motive if this was Jack, who was in throat-slitting mood that very night (for all those who don't need to find yet another murderer for Eddowes). But if it wasn't Jack, we would be looking for someone who risks the gallows to punish a woman for merely needing the lav, or someone who had formed some personal grudge against Stride specifically (for which there is zero evidence).

Men don't generally lurk in dark yards with sharp knives, waiting for the chance to murder a random unknown unfortunate.

Unless it's their peculiar bag of course.

Love,

Caz
X

[Tom_Wescott]

Didn't Sadler buy Coles a bonnet?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

The request for a lint brush...the ankle length skirt...the flower on her jacket...the breath fresheners in her hand......for some this adds up to an Unfortunate soliciting?

Not for me, Michael. I'd say it was 50-50 in Stride's case, going by what we know about her past and her movements that night. All women wore ankle length skirts; most women would have worn a flower on their jacket given half a chance; most women would have asked to borrow a clothes brush when needed (ankle length skirts sat uncomfortably with all that horse shi* on the roads for a start); most women would have used breath fresheners if they could get hold of any. You seem to be suggesting that the sort of woman who went out soliciting was some kind of sub-human creature who had lost all sense of her femininity, except when she was being very naughty with it to earn (quite literally) a crust.

Id suggest becoming familiar with the brutish encounters that passed for street sex with East End warehousemen before believing that flowers and fresh breath had anything to do with it.

You do whatever you have to do by means of research, but I'll pass on that one.

Black and white is not real life, Michael. When it comes to the history of relationships between man and woman, from the briefest sordid encounter with a brutish stranger (paid or unpaid) to full-on Romeo & Juliet territory, there must be a thousand shades of grey in between.

You cannot define any late Victorian woman by a lint brush, a long skirt, a flower and cachous - any more than the rest of us can; the difference being that only you appear to be trying. It's like the 1970s in reverse. Peter Sutcliffe judged any woman in a short skirt to be 'asking for it' and many would have agreed with him, while others only described his non-prostitute victims as 'innocent'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

Not for me, Michael. I'd say it was 50-50 in Stride's case, going by what we know about her past and her movements that night. All women wore ankle length skirts; most women would have worn a flower on their jacket given half a chance; most women would have asked to borrow a clothes brush when needed (ankle length skirts sat uncomfortably with all that horse shi* on the roads for a start); most women would have used breath fresheners if they could get hold of any. You seem to be suggesting that the sort of woman who went out soliciting was some kind of sub-human creature who had lost all sense of her femininity, except when she was being very naughty with it to earn (quite literally) a crust.

Love,

Caz
X

I don't think it's about losing a sense of femininity, I think its about casting pearls before swine, so to speak. Like why on earth would you gussy yourself up for someone who doesn't care in the slightest and likely doesn't look at you any more than is necessary to accomplish a fairly simple task? Why not save those efforts for someone who cares? I had to go into the shop I work in wearing a dress for a wedding once, and I swear to god my boss had no idea who I was. I don't put effort into my appearance at work. My work is dirty and staining, and I don't want advancement there. I want to put in my time, make my money, and maybe get out with good enough references to get into a better shop. Which is not really unlike soliciting.

On the other hand, we know that prostitutes dated. Just because she was a whore doesn't mean she didn't have a fellow. Or a lady. Someone she might take some time out from soliciting to meet when they got off work. Someone she might want to freshen up for first, maybe someone new. And of course there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that person was going to come forward and say that they were planning to meet her. Especially if it's possible she was killed at the meeting place or on her way to it. A man would immediately become a suspect, and possibly railroaded (since it would take the murder of Mary Kelly to clear him, and they didn't know that would happen). A woman would be completely freaked out that it could have been her, and besides she would also be risking prison. I have no idea if that was the case, but it's possible. There's really no reason to assume that wasn't meeting someone in particular, as opposed to just hanging out on a street where there wasn't a lot of customers.

[caz]

Hi Errata,

It wasn't me doing any assuming. You make my point for me, that women out soliciting often had boyfriends they tried to keep themselves nice for, or at least would have liked to find a boyfriend, even while looking to attract paying customers. There is therefore no black and white in this situation, unless you are seriously suggesting a woman would either go out whoring and not give a fig about her appearance, or go out on a date, or look for a date, and do the best she could on just those occasions.

That doesn't seem to allow for any middle ground, any multi-tasking if you will. And is a whore who is out whoring more or less likely to attract customers of any kind by looking like a tramp when she has the option to look like she's hoping to find 'lurve'?

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

consistent

Hello Caroline.

"Having said that, on balance I prefer a simpler scenario whereby Stride heads for the club to pay an urgent call of nature. A tanked-up BS man follows her there and shoves her, perhaps misinterpreting her haste and destination as some kind of personal snub. She explains she just needs a wee - badly - and manages to get shot of him. Relieving herself, she emerges from the unlocked privy, takes out the packet of cachous she bought earlier, and suddenly finds herself overpowered by her killer, who saw her go in and lurked in the darkness to wait for her to come out again."

AND this contains no internal inconsistency.

See, that wasn't so bad, was it?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Not sure what you mean, Lynn. I've suggested as much in the dim and distant past, when you were probably in short pants and had never heard of the casebook.

Now, if her killer was waiting for her to come out of the privy, so he could coldly slit her throat, any suggestions for his motive? A fit of temper because she didn't wash her hands?

Love,

Caz
X