How are we so certain the victims were all prostitutes?

[DarkPassenger]

Quick question...

I read somewhere that prostitutes in the period of Jack proactively approached their potential customers and placed a hand on their chest. Is this right?

[Michael W Richards]

This has occurred to me on several occasions. Aside from Mary Jane Kelly, it seems to me that the other victims may have just been rough sleepers who weren't able to find their doss money for the night and bedded down in a door way or a quiet corner. How are we so certain they were prostitutes? There is no suggestion that they had sexual intercourse with the ripper, there was no money found on the bodies. On the police reports the word 'prostitute' was written into the section marked 'occupation' - but might this have just been a guess by the police that a woman walking the streets at night was a prostitute? In fact, it seems to me that most of the victims had been beggars.

Based on existing known evidence, 2 of the Five Canonicals stated to friends that they were out to earn money for their bed that night. In the middle of the night. Safe to conclude it was soliciting. Unfortunate and Prostitute are both used to describe the women, though I would think that Mary is the only one of the Five who had been doing this exclusively for a living for some years. We know of no other way she made money......other than "from the kindness of strangers". We have evidence that Liz cleaned rooms and was regularly employed doing that up until her murder, Polly and Kate knitted and sewed. Kate also went hops picking in the summer, and had John to assist her with money.

[Bridewell]

If they were prostitutes, were they killed because they were prostitutes?

For that there is no evidence whatsoever that I can think of other than the "Dear Boss" letter - which almost everybody thinks was a journalistic hoax - and therefore not evidence of any kind about the killer's motives.

[GUT]

If they were prostitutes, were they killed because they were prostitutes?

For that there is no evidence whatsoever that I can think of other than the "Dear Boss" letter - which almost everybody thinks was a journalistic hoax - and therefore not evidence of any kind about the killer's motives.

Now that's a different question.

I think they may have been killed because they were prostitutes in that prostitutes were an easy target, ie the most likely females to go with a stranger to a private place in the middle of the night. As opposed to the killer had a set on prostitutes.

[Wickerman]

Now that's a different question.

I think they may have been killed because they were prostitutes in that prostitutes were an easy target, ie the most likely females to go with a stranger to a private place in the middle of the night. As opposed to the killer had a set on prostitutes.

Right, he didn't kill them because they were prostitutes (ie; he didn't hate prostitutes).
His victims were prostitutes because they were plentyful, available, and willing to go somewhere secluded. Which, presumably other women out late at night like; a midwife, a maid, a nurse or housewife would not.

[Scott Nelson]

Possibly, they may have been out at night. After all, I've just seen the new documentary series on Queen Victoria and it shows that on occasion midwives, maids and nurses were out and about at all hours of the night.

[GUT]

Right, he didn't kill them because they were prostitutes (ie; he didn't hate prostitutes).
His victims were prostitutes because they were plentyful, available, and willing to go somewhere secluded. Which, presumably other women out late at night like; a midwife, a maid, a nurse or housewife would not.

Sums up my opinion pretty well.

[Varqm]

Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Right, he didn't kill them because they were prostitutes (ie; he didn't hate prostitutes).
His victims were prostitutes because they were plentyful, available, and willing to go somewhere secluded. Which, presumably other women out late at night like; a midwife, a maid, a nurse or housewife would not.


Is there anything to tip the balance towards this argument as opposed to
the killer hating prostitutes? Or both?

[GUT]

Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Right, he didn't kill them because they were prostitutes (ie; he didn't hate prostitutes).
His victims were prostitutes because they were plentyful, available, and willing to go somewhere secluded. Which, presumably other women out late at night like; a midwife, a maid, a nurse or housewife would not.


Is there anything to tip the balance towards this argument as opposed to
the killer hating prostitutes? Or both?

I don't know of evidence to PROVE it either way.

[Robert]

Hi Dark Passenger

I've never heard of the hand on chest thing - except obviously with Eddowes.

Of course, if Hutchinson is to be believed, it was Mr A who approached MJK by tapping her on the shoulder. If Mary was looking for a client, Mr A must have been pretty quick with his shoulder tap before Mary got her chest touch in.

[Varqm]

I don't know of evidence to PROVE it either way.

Not looking for proof,just a reason.It's an old case.I know how it works.

Ripper case: No evidence/ very tenuous interpretation of facts = guilty
OJ Simpson case: Loads of evidence = not guity