6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Observer

I suspect in the normal course of matters, and in a location other than Flowery Dean, a Deputy may well have baulked...

But this IS Flowery Dean, the Deputy has known them for seven or eight years, (and comes across clearly, even at second hand, more than sympathetic towards them);

Uncharacteristically he seems to trust them regarding payment - I honestly think he'd admit her, and if he didn't let her into the Singles, I think he'd probably allow them enough credit to promote them to the Doubles...

Read him again afresh and see what you think...

All the best

Dave

[Observer]

Hi Dave

Only one bed had been paid for. The "couples" slept in a different dormitory. Kelly would have been in the men's dormitory. Are you saying that the deputy would have let Kate Eddowes kip down in the men's dormitory? Remember it's being implied that Kelly would have gave up his bed for Kate Eddowes.

Regards

Observer

[Cogidubnus]

Took John Kelly's bed? In the men's dormitory? I doubt it.

Sorry Observer

Per the inquest evidence of Frederick William Wilkinson, deputy of the Flower and Dean lodging house, as reported in The Times 5th October 1888:-

"He had never known her being intimate with anyone but Kelly"

"Kelly called between 7.30 and 8 on Saturday night and took a single bed. A single bed was 4d and a double was 8d"

"He believed the last time the deceased and Kelly slept together at the lodginghouse was five or six weeks ago, before they went hopping"

"Kelly slept at the lodginghouse on Frday and Saturday night in No. 52 Single"

Clearly she COULD have gone to Flower and Dean, and probably WOULD have been admitted - the Deputy clearly accepted them as a couple, was used to them sleeping together, and would've been at least sympathetic to admitting her...or are you suggesting mixed company wasn't customary in at least some of the East End lodginghouses?

All the best

Dave

[Observer]

. . .

" . . . would there have been ANY reason to go to Flower and Dean? Could she have gotten in?"

Why not? It was still relatively early. And she could always take John's bed whilst he wandered about. And was he not expecting her?

Cheers.
LC

Took John Kelly's bed? In the men's dormitory? I doubt it.

[lynn cates]

money and things

Hello Velma. Thanks.

"However, at that time of night, if she had no money and John had had only enough to purchase a bed for himself . . ."

Of course, John was able to stay the next night, so maybe . . .

" . . . would there have been ANY reason to go to Flower and Dean? Could she have gotten in?"

Why not? It was still relatively early. And she could always take John's bed whilst he wandered about. And was he not expecting her?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Good Morning, Lynn,
I've pondered the same thing.

However, at that time of night, if she had no money and John had had only enough to purchase a bed for himself -- would there have been ANY reason to go to Flower and Dean? Could she had gotten in?

Perhaps she simply knew she could not get in and would be required to wander around for the rest of the night? In that case, one way would have been as good as another.

curious

Hi curious.

And herein lies the biggest flaw in the conspiracy theorist arsenal, a total inability to take on board "the bleedin obvious". It amazes me that the slightest mundane piece of information regarding the whole Jack the Ripper stroy is pounced on, and turned into a mystery.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Rivkah

You miss my point. Mike Richards posted regarding Liz Stride.

" Including the one that irks me the most,..that despite any evidence validating the claim, she was soliciting at the time."

Your reply

I would go further, and say that if it weren't for the "down on whores" line in one of the letters which we are nonetheless sure was a hoax, we wouldn't assume that any Ripper victim must have been soliciting.

As I have already pointed out, long before the down on whores letter appeared, the general concensus was that JTR was targetting prostitutes. From the above lines you are making out as if the down on whores letter inspired the idea that Jack was targetting prostitutes. This is plainly not the case. The whole reason why the author of the letter included "I am down on whores" is down to the fact that (in the eyes of the public ) Jack had already murdered three prostitutes.


Regards

Observer

[curious]

Hello Rivkah.

"For example, if Eddowes was not soliciting, but possibly stumbling and staggering a little, from a combination of residual alcohol, very low blood sugar, and plain tiredness, JTR could have offered her an arm to lean on, and asked which way she was headed, instead of asking her if she'd "do" him for 4d."

Indeed. But it does not explain her direction--to Mitre sq rather than to Flower and Dean.

Cheers.
LC

Good Morning, Lynn,
I've pondered the same thing.

However, at that time of night, if she had no money and John had had only enough to purchase a bed for himself -- would there have been ANY reason to go to Flower and Dean? Could she had gotten in?

Perhaps she simply knew she could not get in and would be required to wander around for the rest of the night? In that case, one way would have been as good as another.

curious

[lynn cates]

Oh where shall I go wander?

Hello Rivkah.

"For example, if Eddowes was not soliciting, but possibly stumbling and staggering a little, from a combination of residual alcohol, very low blood sugar, and plain tiredness, JTR could have offered her an arm to lean on, and asked which way she was headed, instead of asking her if she'd "do" him for 4d."

Indeed. But it does not explain her direction--to Mitre sq rather than to Flower and Dean.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah

It was patently obvious long before the down on whores letter was delivered that the killer was targetting prostitutes. I don't think it had any bearing on the public mind that the killer was targetting prostitutes, they already knew this.
Regards

Observer

I think there's a difference between "targeting prostitutes," and "targeting vulnerable women."

All of the religious mania/crusade sorts of theories require that JTR knew, or had good reason to believe the women he killed were really working prostitutes. Actually, I've never seen a theory that even acceded to the idea that it was only necessary that JTR thought the women were prostitutes-- the theories were quite vehement about the women's activities-- one I read even insisted that JTR knew Stride had been a registered prostitute in Sweden :eyeroll:.

Casual prostitutes in the East End were unquestionably vulnerable. So was a woman who had a date and got stood up, or a woman living alone in a ground-floor apartment with a broken door-latch (which is a loose description of MJK's room, but if the killer happened to know the trick of reaching through the broken window, then effectively the door had no lock), or a woman who didn't have the money for a bed in a doss house, and was sleeping in a doorway.

I'm of the opinion that JTR wasn't targeting prostitutes per se, just vulnerable women he could get to go some place alone with him, and casual prostitutes were probably easy go-tos. Women who worked in brothels, "kept" women, and other higher level prostitutes, who, if one wanted to make a point about prostitution and sin, were more visible, and newsworthy, but a lot less accessible, were not what JTR was after.

For example, if Eddowes was not soliciting, but possibly stumbling and staggering a little, from a combination of residual alcohol, very low blood sugar, and plain tiredness, JTR could have offered her an arm to lean on, and asked which way she was headed, instead of asking her if she'd "do" him for 4d. It doesn't really matter. We know she was alone and vulnerable, and that's all the killer needed.

[Observer]

And just for the record, my point was a reference to those who believe Liz Stride, on the promise of a date, was lured to her death, thus ruling out any involvment of JTR being responsible for the crime. Any mention of Liz Stride actively soliciting or casually visiting public houses destroys their theory. And by the way, I'd agree, it's a moot point whether she were soliciting or not on the night of her murder, Jack the Ripper done for her all the same.

[c.d.]

Just for the record, my point had to do with whether Liz was actively soliciting that night. And my reference to it being moot had only to do with whether that could have ruled out Jack as her killer.

c.d.

[Observer]

Hi Rivkah

It was patently obvious long before the down on whores letter was delivered that the killer was targetting prostitutes. I don't think it had any bearing on the public mind that the killer was targetting prostitutes, they already knew this.
Regards

Observer

[RivkahChaya]

Thanks for that. Yeah, there is certainly a lot of discussion and argument as to whether Liz was soliciting that night but to me it is a moot point. All that talk of Liz's attire and preparation for going out would be completely lost on Jack. All he would see is a single woman late at night standing by herself, lint brush and velvet be damned. As you say, we will never know what happened next. But trying to determine whether Liz was actively soliciting or not that night won't give us the answer.

I think it's an important point of discussion. I think so, because one woman's definite statement about soliciting, another's statement that suggests that is what she was going to do, along with the fact that Mary Kelly seems to have been a pro, and the discredited, but nonetheless titillating "down on whores" line in one of the letters, has led to lots of wild and woolly theories where Jack was on some kind of manic, or religious (at least, in his mind) crusade, to rid the world of Jezebels. All those theories are bunk. Someone on that kind of crusade would go into a brothel, and do to the women there what Richard Speck did to the student nurses, or just set the place on fire.

You don't make a point about prostitution by killing women who are so ambiguously members of the profession. It would be like declaring a personal war against drug cartels, and then killing a guy with a prescription for medicinal marijuana, a guy who got fired for using cocaine back in the 1980s, but has been clean since, and a stand-up comic, who made a lot of drug jokes, but may not actually use drugs himself. That doesn't send much of a message.

[Observer]

Hello Caz,

Thanks for that. Yeah, there is certainly a lot of discussion and argument as to whether Liz was soliciting that night but to me it is a moot point. All that talk of Liz's attire and preparation for going out would be completely lost on Jack. All he would see is a single woman late at night standing by herself, lint brush and velvet be damned. As you say, we will never know what happened next. But trying to determine whether Liz was actively soliciting or not that night won't give us the answer.

c.d.

P.S. I enjoyed the heading on your post. Very appropriate.

Hi c.d.

It's certainly not a moot point to those who believe that Liz Stride had an assignment the night she was murdered. She ultimately being murdered by the one/ones she met. Why do you think they are so insistant that Liz Stride was not soliciting? The suggestion that because Liz Stride took particular attention to her attire that night then she must have arranged to see someone does not hold water for me. For all we know this" dressing up", for what it's worth, come Saturday night (and I don't mean to beliitle Liz Stride here) might well have been a regular occurance in her life.
Regards

Observer