One for Tom

[Observer]

Hi Paul

If you include Stride, who was murdered in a walkway behind double gates three out of the five victims were murdered next to double gates.

I believe the victims had used those gates on previous occasions to conceal themselves while they plied their trade.

I'd say that Chapman was almost certainly one of the women who had been turned out of the yard or passageway by John Richardson on a occasion prior to her eventual murder. If Kelly was not murdered by an intruder, then she must have taken her killer back with her to Miller's Court.

These are the reasons why I believe the victim chose the venue for their eventual death, rather than the killer.

Do you think Stride's killer bought her the flowers?

All the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Jason

Even during the height of the 1888 terror I suggest prostitutes were just as concerned at being caught for soliciting by the police as they were of being killed at the hands of the ripper. Using a room makes sense when hiding from the police.

It also makes sense when you can charge a little bit extra for one's services, and is much drier and warmer than a dark alley,

All the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Jason,

Using a room makes sense when hiding from the police.

Odd then that Mrs. Cox didn't think so, but chose to solicit on the streets on 9th November instead. Perhaps the economical advantage of getting through more customers by servicing them more or less where she found them made even more sense? With an added bonus that grubby dockers and labourers wouldn't be sullying her sheets.

[jason_c]

Hi Jason,



Odd then that Mrs. Cox didn't think so, but chose to solicit on the streets on 9th November instead. Perhaps the economical advantage of getting through more customers by servicing them more or less where she found them made even more sense? With an added bonus that grubby dockers and labourers wouldn't be sullying her sheets.

Ben

Depending upon where she found her customers, yes. Going through them more quickly out on the streets also makes sense.

I still believe that prostitutes at the time were just as concerned at being fined for soliciting as they were scared of being murdered. We have plenty evidence of these women carrying on with the exact same behaviour patterns during the scare as they had before.

Observer

I agree. Charging more makes sense. I have no evidence but im sure even today a prostitute could charge more for an "inside job" then a quickie in a punters car.

[c.d.]

Hi Jason,

I just don't see the prostitutes as being that concerned about being arrested for soliciting. I don't think the police were all that eager to arrest them knowing that they probably didn't have the money to pay the fine and that they would be back on the streets again the next day. Pretty much like it is today. I think it was more in the nature of an annoyance to the prostitutes and certainly not in the same league as being of victim of the Ripper. Still, I am sure that they tried to avoid being arrested if possible. My opinion only.

c.d.

[paul emmett]

If you include Stride, who was murdered in a walkway behind double gates three out of the five victims were murdered next to double gates.

Hello, Observer.

3? Stride, Nichols and ?Eddowes? Did Mitre Square have double gates?

We've done this before : I want to take your cool points in different directions. Because if there were 3 killed next to double gates, I think the coincidence of that, the odds against that, suggest that the same mind selected all three spots. I've always wondered why JTR didn't take Stride deeper into the courtyard.

I do think Jack treated Stride to a rose, and I think that PFC Smith did see JTR with Stride. And as far as who selected Dutfield's Yard, I think it's important that noone had seen Stride around there before, so it doesn't seem to be one of her usual haunts.

I know this doesn't carry much weight with you because you don't see Stride as a Ripper victim, but I appreciate you listening and coming up with them great points.

[paul emmett]

Hi Jason,



Odd then that Mrs. Cox didn't think so, but chose to solicit on the streets on 9th November instead.

Hi, Ben. We don't know that for sure, right? She could have been out for hours looking, unsuccessfully, for cusomers to bring back home. Also as suggested on a recent thread, we can't even be sure she was alone listening to MJK singing about mothers and violets.

[Ben]

We can be pretty sure, on both counts, Paul. The notion that Cox secured not a single client on three visits outdoors in such a densely populated locality seems most unlikely, as does the suggestion that she did take clients home but mysteriously forgot or neglected to mention them.

[paul emmett]

We can be pretty sure, on both counts, Paul. The notion that Cox secured not a single client on three visits outdoors in such a densely populated locality seems most unlikely, as does the suggestion that she did take clients home but mysteriously forgot or neglected to mention them.

I don't know how mysterious it is, Ben. She wouldn't want to get a paying customer involved with The Law. As far as her success rate, remember the one description we have of her.

[jason_c]

If Kitty Ronan were bringing back punters we can assume the types of Kelly and Prater were doing the same 20 years previously.

[Fisherman]

Hi Jason!

On another thread, we are battling it out to see whether Elizabeth Prater lived in the front room over Kelly (which she did), or in the back room (which she did not).
In the process of going through the material, you will sooner or later stumble over the Daily Telegraph of November 10, stating the following:

"Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased."

...which goes admirably to bolster your thoughts on the subject, I think!

The best, Jason!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Paul,

She wouldn't want to get a paying customer involved with The Law.

If it aided an inquiry that was investigating the brutal murder of several of her kind, I'd say she would. It's not as if she'd know his name.

As far as her success rate, remember the one description we have of her.

Less attractive that Martha Tabram or Annie Chapman, both of whom were picking up clients on the streets in the small hours? Probably not.

Hi Jason,

If Kitty Ronan were bringing back punters we can assume the types of Kelly and Prater were doing the same 20 years previously.

Ah, but if Mary Cox wasn't..? It's fine to use examples of prostitutes who brought clients home to show that Kelly may have done the same, as long as we don't ignore the counter examples of prostitutes that didn't.

[jason_c]

Ben, what did Cox say that makes you so sure she didnt bring men home?

Im not saying these women brought every punter home. Simply that it was not unusual for them to do so. We have brief snapshot of prostitution in Millers Court during a 20 year period. Two different nights are accounted for. Both nights "strangers" are brought back.

Thanks fisherman, where is that quote from?

[Ben]

Ben, what did Cox say that makes you so sure she didnt bring men home?

Because she said nothing about bringing any clients home at the inquest, Jason. Had she brought any home, rather than servicing them on the streets, it would have been germane to the investigation as any client in the right place at the right time would have been another potential witness.

That said, I agree that it wouldn't be "unusual" for prostitutes to being clients home.

[Fisherman]

You´re welcome, Jason. It is from the Daily Telegraph, dated November 10, 1888 - the day after the Kelly murder.

As for the topic of Cox bringing home clients or not that night, Ben and I have had a lengthy exchange on it on another thread. The outcome, if I remember it correctly - was that it was perfectly possible that Cox in fact DID bring punters home and intentionally avoided to mention it (she was never asked if she did, for all we know, so it would have been easy enough to avoid mentioning it), but as it stands, the probability that she spoke the truth at the inquest seems the more credible option.

The best, Jason! (and Ben, should you be listening in!)
Fisherman